CWP No.1080 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1080 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: February 2, 2010 BIHARI LAL SHARMA, DRAWING TEACHER ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: MR. R.L. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of selection list and orders vide which the seniority of the petitioner has been fixed w.e.f. 20.6.1961 and he has been given the selection grade w.e.f. 1968. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to fix his seniority w.e.f. 8.12.1956 and grant him the selection grade w.e.f. 1961. The petitioner was originally appointed as untrained Teacher in Colony High School at Nangal which was run by Irrigation Department, Punjab, on 8.12.1956 in the pay scale of Rs.50-3-80/4-100. It is the case of the petitioner that aforementioned pay scale was not given to him from the date of his joining, i.e. from 8.12.1956. The petitioner became a trained Teacher on 20.6.1961, and accordingly, his seniority was fixed from this date. The petitioner filed CWP No.8677 of 1976, wherein he claimed that he should be given his seniority from the date of his joining, i.e. from 8.12.1956 and not from the CWP No.1080 of 1993 -2- date when he became trained Teacher. However, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 17.7.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review application bearing No.96 of 1983 wherein he claimed that as seniority has been given to various other untrained Teachers from the date of their joining, hence the same relief be given to him also. This review application was allowed vide order dated 31.10.1983 and the order dated 17.7.1983, was recalled and the following order was passed:- “Keeping in view the averments made in the review application and reply to the same in the form of affidavit of Sh.Pritam Singh Bhopal, Deputy Director (School Administration) Direction of Public Instructions, (Schools), Punjab dated 22nd October, 1983. I recall my order dated 15th July, 1983. Since in the later mentioned affidavit, it has been stated that “the claim of the petitioner is hereby admitted and his case is being accordingly decided” I direct the said authorities to complete this process of consideration within a period of one month from today and decide the case of the petitioner, as made in the petition by passing a speaking order. Thus this petition stands disposed of within the above noted observations with no order as to cost.” Learned counsel has submitted that regular pay scale, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, was given to the petitioner from the date of his joining as an untrained Teacher and that the Government of Punjab, Department of Education vide memo dated 1.12.1986 (Annexure P-7) had granted seniority to the untrained Teachers from the date of their joining. CWP No.1080 of 1993 -3- Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as per order dated 31.10.1983, passed by this Court in the review application filed by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents and hence on this count also the petitioner is entitled to have his seniority determined from the date of his joining. It has lastly been contended that as per CV Teachers Circular dated 31.3.1983, the date of joining in continuous service is depicted as 8.12.1956, whereas the date of his selection grade has been shown to be 20.6.1961. On the basis of the aforementioned seniority also, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner had joined the service on 8.12.1956, therefore, his seniority should be fixed from that date. Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that a perusal of order Annexure P-1 shows that the petitioner was appointed as untrained Teacher on a fixed salary of Rs.50/- and hence he was not working in the regular pay scale, therefore, is not entitled to have his seniority fixed from 8.12.1956. Learned counsel for the State further submits that as the petitioner has not impleaded any other untrained Teacher, who had been given seniority from the date of his joining, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in this writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the petitioner was appointed as untrained Teacher in the regular pay scale of Rs.50-3- 80/4-100 on 8.12.1956. Vide letter Annexure P-7, the State of Punjab had decided to grant seniority to untrained teachers from the date of their appointment. A perusal of this letter shows that it was decided by the CWP No.1080 of 1993 -4- Government that it would be unjust to deny the running grade of pay of JBT Teachers to the untrained Teachers from the date of their appointment. Hence, the benefit was extended to all the untrained Teachers from the date of their appointment in a regular grade. Apart from the above, a perusal of the order dated 31.10.1983, passed by this Court in review application No.96 of 1983 also shows that order dated 17.7.1983, was recalled on the basis of affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and further that the claim of the petitioner was admitted by the respondents. Lastly, a perusal of the seniority list (Annexure P-3) circulated by the respondents shows that the petitioner was in the regular pay scale and his date of appointment has been depicted as 8.12.1956. In view of the above, the seniority list (Annexure P-5) which depicted the date of joining in Government service of the petitioner to be 20.6.1961, is erroneous and cannot be sustained as seniority of the petitioner would have to be reckoned from the date of his appointment and joining in regular pay scale, i.e. from 8.12.1956. In view of the above, the seniority list (Annexure P-5), in which the date of joining of the petitioner is mentioned to be 20.6.1961 instead of 8.12.1956, is quashed qua the petitioner. The respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.12.1956 and grant him the selection grade w.e.f. 1961. The petitioner is also held entitled to all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. February 2, 2010 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE