IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13422 of 1993 Date of decision: 6th July, 2010 Gurdip Singh Dhillon and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner No.1 was employed as a Headmaster and petitioner No.2 as a Social-Studies Master in Public High School at village Hari Nau in District Bathinda (now District Faridkot), which was later-on taken over by the Government. Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that since petitioner No.1 had not worked for three years as a Headmaster, he was not entitled to be absorbed as a Headmaster and therefore, he was rightly absorbed as a Master. Learned counsel has confined his prayer to a limited extent that once the services of the petitioners were regularized as Social-studies Masters, their pay-scale was to be fixed, considering the service rendered by them in the School, which was later-on taken over by the Government. Counsel for the petitioners, for grant of this relief, has relied upon a judgment (Annexure P-2) rendered by a Single Bench of Civil Writ Petition No.13422 of 1993 this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6350 of 1976 titled as ‘Hardial Singh Brar and others v. State of Punjab and another’ decided on 22nd February, 1977. It will be apposite here to reproduce the judgment: “S.P.Goyal, J. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 joined as teachers in G.N.D. Malwa Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Guru Teg Bahadur Garh, while petitioner Nos.4 to 7 in G.N. Higher Secondary School, Mehtabgarh, respectively. The erstwhile State of Punjab took over the privately managed school vide Memo No.1343-ED-II(3)62/5007, dated March 6, 1962 Annexure P.1 on the conditions mentioned therein. The services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from the date the privately managed institutions were taken vide Memo No.1330-ED/IV/35/60-65/14113, dated March 19, 1965 but neither their pay was fixed according to the said conditions nor they were allowed the annual increments. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was therefore, filed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners and to allow them the increments according to the said conditions. It is admitted between the parties that the question involved in this petition has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in favour of the petitioners in the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, Chandigarh and another v. Dalip Singh Gill (L.P.A. No.200 of 1976 decided on October 6, 1976). However, Mr.D.N. Rampal, the learned Deputy Advocate General, contends that the petition suffers from laches and is liable to be dismissed on this score. The cause of action, according to the learned counsel, arose to the petitioners in the year 1965 whereas the present petition was filed on August 31, 1976. I am, however, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel, the petition out of which the above mentioned L.P.A. arose was filed in the year 1971, but no objection was raised by the State that the petition had been filed after inordinate delay. It was after the decision in that case which was allowed by the learned Single Judge that the present petition was filed to claim a 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13422 of 1993 similar relief. In these circumstances, I find no reason to decline the relief to the petitioners on the ground of laches, particularly when the cause of action is a continuing one. The petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners and pay them the arrears in accordance with the conditions laid down in Memo No.1343-ED-II(3)-62/5007, dated March 6, 1962. No order as to costs. February 22, 1977 Sd/- S.P. Goyal Judge.” After arguing for some time, counsel for the parties are in agreement that claim of the petitioners can be considered in the light of observations made and the ratio of law laid down in LPA No.200 of 1976 decided on October 6, 1976. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners will be entitled to re-fixation of their salary, if they are held entitled to, in terms of LPA No.200 of 1976. However, the arrears, if any, shall be restricted to 38 months before the filing of the present writ petition. Mr.J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has assured that case of the petitioners shall be considered within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 6, 2010 rps 3