IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8151 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:06.09.2011 Ashok Kumar, Government Junior Model School, Nabha (Patiala), and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents II. CWP No.3995 of 1990 (O&M) Pawan Kumar Bansal, S.S. Master, Government Senior Secondary School, Malaudh, Ludhiana, and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents III. CWP No.6325 of 1990 (O&M) Harbans Singh, Government High School, Karir Sahib Litter, Ludhiana, and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Department of Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents IV. CWP No.6326 of 1990 (O&M) Surinder Singh Malra, Government High School, Jhallian Khurd (Ropar), and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Department of Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.8151 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - V. CWP No.17554 of 1991 (O&M) Lekh Raj Khera, Government Senior Secondary School, Jawahar Nagar, Ludhiana, and others. ...Petitioners versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Education, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents VI. CWP No.2194 of 1992 (O&M) Harmohinder Singh Mokha, S.S.Master, Government School Bhucho Mandi (Bhatinda), and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Education, Chandigarh, and another. ....Respondents VII. CWP No.13411 of 1993 (O&M) Kiran Bala, Hindi Teacher, Government Middle School, Chingali Qadim, District Firozpur, and others. ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab, through Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.8151 of 1989. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 3995, 6325 and 6326 of 1990. Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.2194 of 1992. None for the petitioners in CWP No.17554 of 1991 and CWP No.13411 of 1993. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- Civil Writ Petition No.8151 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. All the 7 cases address the same issue of their entitlement to the revised scales of pay which had been announced through a notification of the Government of India to teachers working in Government schools. The original notification required the options to be given up to 31.12.1987 and the petitioners had given such options, but subsequently they were given the benefit of selection grade and higher pay scales on the basis of higher qualification. The matter of entitlement or otherwise had already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Nand Lal Sharma Versus State of Punjab-1996(2) SCT 257. In terms of the said judgment, the relevant observations would be what is contained in para 11. The petitioners would be entitled to the benefits since the Division Bench has specifically observed that it would apply even to persons, who are not compelled to approach this Court for that would mean unnecessary increasing the number of cases. The Bench had directed that the Government should pass an order under Rule 12 for relaxing of the rule relating to the option and its finality. The Bench had further directed in that case that the competent authority would pass an appropriate order within 3 months. The petitioners will have a similar benefit and it will be with reference to all the pecuniary benefits and refixation of scales consequent thereon. The time for completion of the exercise will be 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 2. All the writ petitions are disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 06.09.2011 sanjeev