IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP. No. 15932 of 1993 Date of Decision: 21.1.2010. Balbir Singh Rathee --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 2. CWP. No. 13301 of 1994 Devender Kumar Sanehi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. Pooja Satija, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners in both the petitions were initially appointed in Govt. aided institutions. Later on the management of these institutions was taken over by the State of Haryana. The petitioners are claiming the benefit of the service rendered in the privately managed aided schools before the take over by the State. It is admitted case of the parties that the controversy involved in these petitions is covered by various judgements of this Court including the judgement dated 24.7.2009 passed in CWP No. 6586 of 2008, wherein following observations have been made:- “ The issue raised in the abovesaid three writ petitions already stand adjudicated by this Court in a decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided CWP. No. 15932 of 1993 -2- on July 22, 2009. It is also noticed that the State has taken a similar stand in response to a notice issued in the said writ petitions. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) RSJ 437 and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (6) SLR 624, decided by two different Division Benches of this Court and a case titled Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003(3) RSJ 672, the Court has directed the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioners in a privately managed school and in the Government school for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972. In all these cases, the Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.” In view of the above, both these petitions are allowed. Petitioners are entitled to the relief as granted in the aforesaid writ petition. Copy of this judgement be placed on each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.1.2010. lucky