CWP No. 4847 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No. 4847 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: May 10, 2011 Des Raj Sharma .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) (2) CWP No. 2449 of 2006 Sh. Jai Singh and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) AND (3) CWP No. 2910 of 2006 Bhim Singh Saini .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate, and Mr. L.R. Nandal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of three writ petitions namely CWP No. 4847 of 2006 entitled Des Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4847 of 2006 2 CWP No. 2449 of 2006 entitled Sh. Jai Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 2910 of 2006 entitled Bhim Singh Saini vs. State of Haryana and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. For reference to record, CWP No. 4847 of 2006 entitled Des Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others is being taken up. 3. Challenge in this petition is to orders Annexures P-8 to P-10 dated 08.12.2005, 25.09.2005 and 13.03.2006 respectively. Vide order Annexure P-8 dated 08.12.2005, office of District Education Officer, Karnal has said that petitioner is not entitled to protection of his basic pay on the post of Lecturer as he has been promoted as Head Master of Government High School on the basis of seniority of masters category. Vide letter Annexure P-9, pay of the petitioner has been refixed. Vide order Annexure P-10, recovery has been ordered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue has been dealt with in extenso by this Court while dealing with RSA No. 988 of 1999 decided on 25.08.2000, Ram Chander Gupta vs. State of Haryana etc., also reported as 2000 (4) SCT 595. It has been asserted that issue raised in the present petition has been dealt with in Ram Chander Gupta's case (supra). 5. In para nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment, following has been held:- “11. From the post of Lecturer (school cadre), he was promoted to the post of Head Master, Government High School. It would bear repetition that the post of Head Master of Government High School is of CWP No. 4847 of 2006 3 greater responsibilities vis-a-vis the post of Lecturer of the Higher Secondary School. Faced with this position learned counsel for the State of Haryana submitted that Head Master's is the promotional post from the post of Master and not from the post of Lecturer. Plaintiff was promoted as Lecturer from the post of Master because of his M.A. qualifications. If that was so, he could not have been made to suffer because of his promotion to the post of Head Master. He would have drawn higher pay if he had been promoted from the post of Master to the post of Head Master. He was basically a Master but was put as Lecturer with a view to utilize his M.A. qualification. There is no evidence whether he was Lecturer substantively or he was merely holding the post of Lecturer with his lien on the post of Master. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Haryana that the plaintiff while working as Lecturer was considered as Master for the purpose of the service and he cannot take benefit both ways i.e. for getting promotion as Head Master from the Masters cadre to be treated as from cadre but for the fixation of pay to be treated as pay scale of a Lecturer on promotion to the post of Head Master. 12. In this case, the plaintiff was entitled to the pay fixation because of promotion to the post of Head Master from the post of Lecturer (School cadre) on the principle that the post of Head Master was a post of higher CWP No. 4847 of 2006 4 responsibility vis-a-vis the post of Lecturer (School cadre). In this case, the matter was sought to be raked up by the State after the plaintiff had drawn pay for quite some time. 13. For the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds and is accepted and the judgment and decree of both the courts below are set-aside the plaintiff- appellant's suit is decreed for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to be fixed at Rs.2450/- (basic pay) on 6.10.1986 on his promotion from the post of Lecturer (School cadre) HES III to the post of Head Master of Government High School, Binjalpur and further at Rs. 2525/- w.e.f. 1.4.1987 in view of the fact that the post of Head Master of Govt. High School, in Haryana is of higher responsibility than the post of Lecturer School cadre in the Haryana Education Department and for mandatory injunction directing the respondent-State of Haryana to restrain itself from reducing his basic pay already fixed i.e. Rs. 2450/- on 6.10.1986 and 2525/- w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and so on and that the pay slips issued by the Section Officer, office of District Education Officer Ambala under letter No. Audit/88/124 dated 30.5.1988 and audit/91/Nil dated 25.5.1991, are illegal inoperative, arbitrary, null and void. No costs.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly states that indeed the issue raised in this petition is covered by decision of this Court rendered in Ram Chanders Gupta's case (supra). CWP No. 4847 of 2006 5 7. In view of the above, all the petitions are decided in terms of decision rendered in Ram Chander's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. 10.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?