IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5083 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.4.2008 Smt.Vijay Garg Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Shri Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of 3 Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19164 of 2007, 2884 and 5083 of 2008 involving common question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.5083 of 2008. Notice of motion. Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana accepts notice. Counsel for the parties heard. The petitioner is working as JBT Teacher with the respondents. On acquiring higher qualification, vide order dated 26.7.1999, she was granted Junior School Teacher Category ‘B’ Group II Scale (in short JST Grade). It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the above said higher pay scale was granted to the petitioner on the basis of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.5667 of 1999 decided on 29.4.1999. Civil Writ Petition No.5083 of 2008 Counsel further states that order passed in above said writ petition has become final. Vide the impugned order dated 26.12.2007/ 4.2.2008 (P/6), above said benefit has now been ordered to be withdrawn. Counsel states that the order Annexure P/6 runs contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court, as referred to above. For setting aside the impugned order counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ratio of judgment of this Court in Shakuntala Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.6599 of 2007), decided on 4.3.2008. Faced with the situation, Shri Rathee has failed to show us anything to the contrary. Perusal of judgment in Shakuntala Devi’s case (supra), indicates that similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court and the above said writ petition was disposed of by observing that in cases where above said higher pay scale was granted under orders of this Court and the orders have become final, the State has no authority to withdraw the same. It was further stated that in cases where higher pay scale was granted under general policy of the government, the State Government be at liberty to withdraw the benefit already extended. However, recovery be not effected in view of ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) Recent Services Judgment 139. The writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms as in Shakuntala Devi’s case (supra). (Jasbir Singh) Judge April 11, 2008 (K.C. Puri) gk Judge 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5083 of 2008 3