C.W.P. No. 1334 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1334 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 03, 2009 Raj Kumar and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing clause 16 of the appointment letter dated 08.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioners being eligible to be appointed as ETT teachers, applied for the posts. The petitioners were selected. The petitioners served on pensionable posts. 3. While the petitioners were in service, an advertisement was given for appointment of 2614 Masters and Mistresses. The petitioners being eligible, applied for the same and have been selected. Appointment C.W.P. No. 1334 of 2007 2 letters in the form of Annexure P-3 have been issued. The petitioners are aggrieved by clause/para no. 16 of appointment letter which reads as under:- “16. He/she will not be entitled to any benefit, whatsoever, under the existing pension/family pension scheme. The provisions of new contributory pension scheme to be notified by the Govt. shall be applicable to him/her.” 6. Learned counsel contends that the condition is oppressive in so much as the petitioners were already serving on pensionable posts and, therefore, could not have been subjected to the condition as given out in the extracted portion above. 7. Learned counsel further contends that the respondents having considered the issue and have issued instructions dated 24.10.2008, whereby relief is being given to persons similarly situated as the petitioners. Case of the petitioners, however, has not been considered within the scope of the said letter/instructions. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that indeed the case of the petitioners needs to be considered in the context of instructions contained in letter dated 24.10.2008 issued by the respondents. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioners in view of letter/instructions dated 24.10.2008 and grant requisite relief in terms thereof. 03.12.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?