IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1263 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 12, 2009 Rajesh Kumar & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Clause 15 of appointment letter dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-4). It has been contended that the petitioners joined Punjab Education Department as S.S. Masters/ Science Masters/ Mistresses. The petitioners have served the respondents on pensionable posts. On 21.10.2006, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of Head CWP No.1263 of 2009 [2] Masters/ Head Mistresses. The petitioners being eligible, applied and were selected. Condition No.15 in the letter of appointment stipulates that the petitioners shall not be allowed the benefit of pension/ family pension under the existing scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on reconsideration and reappraisal of facts and circumstances, Instructions dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure A-1) have been issued which allow the relief to the petitioners, however, the relief has not been given. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that indeed the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit under Instructions dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure A-1). I have considered the issue. Since the petitioners were already serving on pensionable posts and because the respondents have issued Instructions (Annexure A-1) which allow relief to the petitioners, they are entitled to the relief prayed for. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Instructions dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure A-1). (AJAI LAMBA) November 12, 2009 JUDGE avin CWP No.1263 of 2009 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?