IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8474 of 1996 Date of decision : 06.04.2011 Inder Mohan and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Permod Kohli, J. Petitioners were working as teacher in Punjab privately managed recognized aided schools and retired from service. It is contended that the teachers of privately managed recognized aided schools and those working in the Govt. Schools are to be treated at par for all intents and purposes including grant of pay and the pensionary benefits. The petitioners are thus claiming parity with Govt. Servants on all other counts as well, particularly, benefits like medical allowance and LTC as allowed to the Govt. employees. With a view to substantiate their claim, the petitioners have referred to Govt. instructions dated 19.5.1989 and notification dated 10.2.1990. Under these govt. instructions, the employees of the privately managed recognized aided schools were granted certain benefits at par with the govt. employees which it includes the superannuation pension, death-cum-gratuity, family pension etc. From these notifications, it appears that no other benefit like medical allowance and LTC was allowed to the privately managed recognized aided schools. Similar issue came to be considered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9103-05 of 1996 titled as ‘State of Punjab and others Vs. Om Parkash Kaushal and others’ along with other connected matters. While considering the claim of the employees of privately managed recognized aided schools for giving additional increment at par with govt. employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “As mentioned above, the Act came into force on January 23,1981, Section 7 of the Act granted parity to the private teachers in the matter of scales of pay and dearness allowance with the Government teachers. Prior to that the Punjab Government had granted unified pay scale and dearness allowance to the Private teachers at par with the Government CWP No.8474 of 1996 [2] teachers by the executive instructions with effect from December 1, 1967. The respondents were given parity under the executive instructions only in respect of pay scales and dearness allowance. The other conditions of service relating to the Government teachers were not extended to the respondents. The incentives provided in the 1960 instructions in the shape of advance increments to the Government teachers who improved their educational qualifications could not be automatically extended to the respondents. This Court, in the two Adhayapak Sangh cases from the State of Haryana, allowed the benefit of pay scales and dearness allowance to the private teacher and declined to go into other benefits like house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance, LTC bonus etc. We, are therefore, of the view that the high court fell into patent error in directing the State of Punjab to grant the benefits under the 1960 instructions to the respondents. We allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court. No costs. Sd/- Kuldip Singh Judge B.L.Hansaria Judge New Delhi, July 08, 1996” In view of the above judgment and the fact that there is no govt. instruction and rule which entitles the petitioners to claim medical allowance and LTC, no relief as sought by the petitioners, can be granted. Dismissed. ( Permod Kohli ) Judge 06.04.2011 sd