CWP No.11494 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.13718 of 2008 in CWP No.11494 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.7.2008 CWP No.11494 of 2006 Ram Kumar Redhu Vs. State of Haryana and another CWP No.5592 of 2007 Kumari Phulawanti Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No.7983 of 2007 Joginder Kaur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) CM No.13718 of 2008 Prayer in this application is for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in CWP No.6599 of 2007 Shakuntla Devi and another V. State of Haryana and others, decided on 4.3.2008. Notice of the application to the State of Haryana. Counsel for the State of Haryana Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice and states that he has no objection, if the writ petitions are heard and decided on merits. Accordingly and with the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing. CWP No.11494 of 2006 2 CWP No.11494 of 2006 This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.11494 of 2006, 5592 of 2007 and 7983 of 2007, as common questions of fact and law arise for adjudication. However, facts have been taken from CWP No.11494 of 2006. Prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 3.7.2006, passed by respondent no.4, vide which the JST grade granted to the petitioner, pursuant to an order passed by this Court, has been withdrawn. Admittedly, the petitioner attained higher qualifications during service and was granted the benefit of JST grade, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in CWP No.5396 of 1994, decided on 14.9.1994. A similar relief was granted to other employees in other writ petitions. However, as in State of Haryana V. Sumitra Devi and others 2004(12) SCC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of JST grade was not to be granted. The respondents issued a letter dated 14.7.2006, directing withdrawal of the JST grade to all teachers. The letter came to be challenged in a large number of writ petitions, before this Court and after considering the entire controversy, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6599 of 2007, Shakuntla Devi and another V. State of Haryana and others, vide order 4.3.2008 decided the matter in favour of the petitioners therein. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy herein, is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforementioned judgement. The present writ petitions should, therefore, be disposed of in the aforementioned terms. CWP No.11494 of 2006 3 Counsel for the State of Haryana, does not deny the factual matrix of the case, but asserts that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that teachers similar to the petitioners in the instant cases are not entitled to the benefit of JST grade, the writ petitions be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, as also the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6599 of 2007 Shakuntla Devi and another (supra) and am satisfied that the dispute in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgement in the aforementioned writ petitions. The learned Division Bench, after considering this dispute, held as follows :- “ Therefore, keeping in view the principle of law that rights inter parties which have been conclusively determined by judicial orders cannot be re-agitated on the basis of subsequent declaration of law in some other subsequent judgement as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Telephone's case (supra), Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's case (supra) and Karnal Coop. Farmers' Society's case (supra), the orders and notices impugned in these connected 28 writ petitions are not sustainable and hence set aside. However, it is made clear that if the benefit of higher grade on the basis of higher qualification i.e. JST grade was granted to any of the petitioner(s) by the respondents on their volition i.e. without any binding judicial order, then the benefit can be withdrawn with CWP No.11494 of 2006 4 effect from the date of grant, in view of the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumitra Devi's case (supra) after following the principles of natural justice, but no recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioners shall be effected for the period from the date of grant till the date of the passing of the orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) Recent Service Judgements 139.” As the controversy in the instant writ petitions is squarely covered by the above judgement, the present writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order passed on 4.3.2008 in CWP No.6599 of 2007 Shakuntla Devi and another V. State of Haryana and others. No order as to costs. 31.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE