CWP No. 10836 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10836 of 1989 Date of decision 22.4.2009 Beena Sharma and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr.Amit Chopra ,Advocate for the appellant Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of increment to the petitioners in lieu of higher qualifications of master's degree. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioner nos. 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36 and 37 would not be entitled to any relief as they had joined service as B.Ed Masters/ Mistress after 19.2.1979. It is appropriate to mention that claim of other petitioners is based on the instructions dated 23.7.1957 ( Annexure P.1) which have been later on withdrawn on 19.2.1979 (P.3). The withdrawal of the instructions on 19.2.1979 were challenged and the challenge has been repelled in the case of Kanwaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RSJ 313. With regard to the other petitioners, the only question raised for determination is whether or not they are entitled to advance increment on account of their higher qualifications although they were appointed on adhoc basis and were CWP No. 10836 of 1989 2 regularised after the cut off date i.e. 19.2.1979. In para 2 of the petition a categorical averment has been made that some of the petitioners namely petitioner nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 33 were appointed on adhoc basis before 19.2.1979 and had cleared post graduation before that date. The claim of those petitioners is based on the instructions dated 23.7.1957 (P.1). In the written statement the prayer made by the petitioners is opposed by taking the stand that adhoc masters/ mistresses would not be entitled to any advance increment before the date of their regularisation. It has been asserted that only those who have been regularised before 19.2.1979 would be entitled to the benefit of instructions dated 23.7.1957 which instructions have been withdrawn effectively on 19.2.1979. Mr. Amit Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Rajinder Kumari v. State of Punjab (Civil Writ Petition No. 4515 of 1986 decided on 2.8.1988) and also a judgement of the learned Single Judge in the case of Baldev Raj Sharma v. State of Punjab 1991(3) SCT 565. He has argued that the petition would survive only on behalf of petitioner nos. 1,2,3,4,5,9,10 and 33. He has emphaised that the claim of other petitioners would not survive for adjudication in view of the fact that letter dated 19.2.1979 (P.3) has withdrawn the earlier instructions dated 23.7.1957 (P.1) and the withdrawal of those instructions were subject matter of challenge and the challenge has been repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanwaljit Kaur (supra). It is appropriate to mention that 1957 letter had linked the pay scale with the qualifications and that on 19.2.1979 the qualifications were de-linked from the pay scale and the pay scales were CWP No. 10836 of 1989 3 confined to the post held by an incumbent. Therefore, the writ petition on behalf of other petitioners except the one mentioned above has to be dismissed because all of them had either acquired the qualification after 19.2.1979 or they have come into service after the said date. He has averred that the instructions dated 19.2.1979 (P.3) would not operate retrospectively. In respect of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,9, 10 and 33 the only question for determination is whether or not they are entitled to advance increment on account of their higher qualification albeit their adhoc appointment. It is undisputed that they were regularised after the cut off date. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioners is fully covered by the Division Bench judgement in Rajinder Kumari's case (supra) and also the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Baldev Raj Sharma's case (supra). The instructions dated 19.2.1979 cannot operate retrospectively to deprive the petitioners the benefit of advance increments particularly when they have been regularised subsequently. Accordingly, the claim of the aforesaid petitioner nos. 1,2,3,4,5,9,10 and 33 is allowed and the claim of other petitioners is rejected. The writ petition stands disposed of (M.M.Kumar ) 22.4.2009 Judge okg