IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12297 of 1991 Date of decision: 30th June, 2010 Tej Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner, Tej Kaur has sought quashing of the impugned order (Annexure P-11) dated 1st August, 1991 whereby three advance increments granted to her were withdrawn and recovery was ordered to be effected. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the appointment letter (Annexure P-1), in which it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner had been appointed as Art and Craft Teacher on regular basis. Furthermore, a perusal of the order (Annexure P-2), whereby sanction was granted to the petitioner to cross efficiency bar, also describes her as an Art and Craft Teacher. The recovery was sought to be effected from the petitioner on the ground that she was Art and Craft Teacher (Sewing) and therefore she was not entitled to the three increments. Vide a separate Civil Misc. application, petitioner has placed on record the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Civil Writ Petition No.12297 of 1991 Petition No.6306 of 1991 titled as ‘Nirmal Kaur versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 27th January, 1992, which reads as under: “It is not disputed in the course of arguments as well as in the written statement and is further evident from Annexures P1 to P9 that the petitioner was appointed as Art and Craft Teacher in the grade of Rs.170-350/-. The cadre of Art and Craft Teachers is one. The only objection taken by the respondents is that though the petitioner was appointed as Art and Craft Teacher but since she was discharging the functions of a Sewing Teacher and was qualified for the job, she is not entitled to the pay scale of Art and Craft Teacher. We find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as Art and Craft Teacher as back as in 1972 and virtually till date she has been drawing pay in the scale meant for the cadre of Art and Craft Teacher with three advance increments as granted to other Art and Craft Teachers. At no point of time she has ever been treated in a separate cadre on account of her being not qualified for Art and Craft Teacher. Now after a lapse of almost 19 years, respondents cannot treat the petitioner in different cadre and grant her a different pay scale. Otherwise, also no such order has been passed. In view of this, judgment in CWP No.519 of 1987 passed on March 21, 1989 by this Court has got no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-9 is quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits.” Counsel for the State has failed to distinguish the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal Kaur’s case (supra), as the appointment letter (Annexure P-1) and the order (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner crossed the efficiency bar, specifically state that she was working as Art and Craft Teacher. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12297 of 1991 Therefore, present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in Civil Writ Petition No.6306 of 1991 titled as ‘Nirmal Kaur versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 27th January, 1992. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 30, 2010 rps 3