CWP No. 21831 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21831 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 08, 2010 Sunita Rani .........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(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing clause no. 15 of appointment letter dated 01.12.2006 Annexure P-3. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of the controversy raised in the petition. 5. It has been brought out that on recommendation of District Selection Committee, Punjab, the petitioner was appointed as Science Mistress on 18.12.2001 in the Department of Education. Respondent no. 1 CWP No. 21831 of 2010 2 issued advertisement dated 21.10.2006 for regular appointment of 1314 school teachers which included 431 Headmasters/Headmistresses. The petitioner who was already serving as Science Mistress was eligible and, therefore, applied in response to the advertisement and appeared before the Committee for scrutiny of original documents. Final merit list of eligible candidates was issued that included the name of the petitioner in female (General) category for appointment as Headmistress. The petitioner was appointed. The petitioner is aggrieved by condition no. 15 of the appointment letter, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “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 has pointed out that identical issue was raised in CWP No. 19697 of 2006 decided on 06.11.2009 entitled Subhash Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is ad idem with learned counsel for the petitioner in saying that such conditions have been quashed and the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. 8. Relevant portion from the judgment rendered in Subhash Singh's case (supra) reads as under:- After selection, the petitioners have been issued appointment letters prescribing various terms and conditions. The petitioners are agitated against provisions given in Para 15 of the appointment letter which read as CWP No. 21831 of 2010 3 under:- “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.” Learned counsel contends that the respondents have already addressed the issue by way of issuing Instructions placed on record as Annexure A-1 (vide Civil Miscellaneous No.17542 of 2009). In Annexure A-1 dated 24.10.2008, it has been provided that any employee of the State Government who was covered by the old pension scheme on 31.12.2003 or before and is appointed to any other post/department of the State Government by submitting resignation on technical basis then in case of that employee, the old pension scheme will continue. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners were already serving as Masters/ Mistresses. The case of the petitioners would be covered by Instructions dated 24.10.2008. Learned counsel contends that requisite benefit, however, is not being given. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute letter dated 24.10.2008 which allows the petitioners the relief prayed for in the petition. In view of letter dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure A- 1), the respondents are directed to consider the cases of CWP No. 21831 of 2010 4 the petitioners and grant the requisite relief in terms of instructions dated 24.10.2008. The petition is accordingly allowed.” 9. In view of the conceded position that the issue raised in the petition is covered by judgment rendered in CWP No. 19697 of 2006 decided on 06.11.2009 entitled Subhash Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, this petition is also allowed in terms of judgment rendered in Subhash Singh's case (supra), relevant portion whereof has been extracted above. 08.12.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?