IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.956 of 2000 Date of decision: 25th October, 2010 Subh Lata … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was posted as a Lecturer of Political Science in Government Senior Secondary School, Ghanauli, District Roopnagar. She joined the Education Department, Punjab on 14th June, 1972 as S.S. Mistress and was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner had passed M.A. in Political Science before her joining the service, i.e. on 13th June, 1969. She was granted 2/3 advance increments in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.220-500, whereas the teachers who were appointed or who acquired the degree of post-graduation after 1st January, 1978, were granted 2/3 advance increments in the revised pay- scale of Rs.620-1200 with a starting pay of Rs.660/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the rate of increments in the revised pay-scale was higher, therefore, one of her juniors, namely Agya Ram started getting more salary than the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that she along with 37 other employees filed a petition bearing Civil Writ Petition Civil Writ Petition No.956 of 2000 No.18065 of 1995 in this Court with a prayer that her salary be stepped up. Later-on, that writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to act in consonance with the general orders passed by the Finance Department granting relief to the concerned persons. It is further stated that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, salary of the petitioner was stepped-up and was made equal to that of her juniors, namely Shingara Singh and Agya Ram. Thereafter, a notice (Annexure P- 15) dated 10th August, 1999 was issued to the petitioner that since Agya Ram belonged to the male category, therefore, case of the petitioner was not comparable to that of Agya Ram and he being posted in male category cannot be considered junior to the petitioner. Vide impugned order (Annexure P-17) dated 2nd November, 1999, recovery was ordered to be effected from the petitioner. She was also asked to give particulars of any junior in the female category, who was drawing salary more than the petitioner. In the present petition, notice was issued on 25th January, 2000 and recovery from the petitioner was stayed. Present petition is hereby disposed of by giving following directions: 1. In case the petitioner furnishes the details of any female Mistress junior to her drawing more salary than the petitioner, within a period of one month from today, the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh order; 2. In case the petitioner fails to furnish the particulars of any female Mistress junior to her drawing more salary than the petitioner, the recovery as proposed shall not be effected from the petitioner, as there was no deception, fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and her case 2 Civil Writ Petition No.956 of 2000 is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid in ‘Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others’ 2009(3) SCT 333 by a Full Bench of this Court. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 25, 2010 rps 3