CWP No.7588 of 1989(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7588 of 1989(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.09.2011 Maghar Singh, Punjabi Teacher, Government High School, Seehan Deod, District Ludhiana ... Petitioner Versus Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to cross efficiency bar at the stage of `850/- w.e.f. 01.06.1983 in the pay scale of `570-1080 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he joined as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher in a Government Primary School on 14.09.1956 at Naudharani, District Ludhiana. He improved his educational qualifications and passed Giani examination in the year 1958 and in the year 1989, he completed his B.A. On 14.06.1972, the petitioner was taken to the cadre of Classical and Vernacular Teachers and posted as Punjabi Teacher. His pay was `220/- but it was fixed at `250/- per month giving him three advance increments in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Scales of Pay) CWP No.7588 of 1989(O&M) [2] Rules, 1969 recognizing his entitlement to advance increments on the basis of higher qualification that he had acquired. 3. With effect from 01.01.1978, on the basis of report from Second Punjab Pay Commission, the pay scales of all Government employees were revised and the petitioner had his scale revised at `570-1080 in which his pay was fixed at the stage of `725/-. The petitioner would claim that the date of annual increment would fall each year on 1st June and he was due to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.06.1983 at the stage of `850/-, raising his pay to `880/- per month. His grievance is that he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar and would, therefore, place his reliance to a decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.3818 of 1978. 4. Responding to the petitioner's plea, the respondents filed a statement contending that the petitioner's case for granting relief was under consideration in CWP No.3818 of 1978. The counsel for the State does not have instructions on the outcome of such exercise. So long as, it is seen that the Government was not adverse to take a favourable consideration in terms of the judgment in CWP No.3818 of 1978 and the said judgment itself remained unassailed, I would hold that the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for in the writ petition. Any consequential benefit that remains unpaid shall be calculated and will be paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 5. The writ petition is allowed as above. SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE