C.W.P. No. 6448 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6448 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: December 03, 2009 Ashok Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of two civil writ petitions namely CWP No. 6448 of 2009 titled Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others and CWP No. 16377 of 2007 Chander Mohan Vs. State of Punjab and Others, as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. For reference to facts, CWP No. 6448 of 2009 titled Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others is being taken up. 3. 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 15 of the appointment letter dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure P-2). 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the C.W.P. No. 6448 of 2009 2 petitioner being eligible to be appointed as SS Master, applied for the post. The petitioner was selected. The petitioner served on a pensionable post. 5. While the petitioner was in service, an advertisement was given for appointment of 1314 school teachers including 431 Head Masters/Head Mistresses. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same and has been selected. Appointment letter in the form of Annexure P-2 has been issued. The petitioner is aggrieved by clause/para no. 15 of appointment letter which reads as under:- “15. He/she will not be paid any TA/DA for joining the place of posting. 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 petitioner was already serving on a pensionable post 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 petitioner. Case of the petitioner, 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 petitioner needs to be considered in the context of instructions contained in letter dated 24.10.2008 issued by the respondents. C.W.P. No. 6448 of 2009 3 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 petitioner 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?