IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19697 of 2006 Date of Decision: November 06, 2009 Subhash Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Clause 15 of appointment letter dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-5). It has been contended that the petitioners joined Punjab Education Department as S.S. Masters/ Science Masters/ Mistresses and have been performing their duties. It has further been pleaded that an advertisement was issued for appointment on regular CWP No.19697 of 2006 [2] basis of Head Masters/ Mistresses on 21.10.2006. It has been provided in the advertisement that the candidate must possess degree from any UGC Recognised University with B.Ed and experience as prescribed for various categories of persons i.e. in case of M.A. or M.Sc. with M.Ed, 6 years; in case of M.A. or M.Sc. with B.Ed., 7 years; and in case of B.A., B.Ed., 8 years. The petitioners were already working in the capacity of Masters/ Mistresses as given out above. Being in possession of requisite prescribed qualification, the petitioners applied in response to the advertisement. The merit list prepared by the Committee included the names of the petitioners. The list has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. 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 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 CWP No.19697 of 2006 [3] 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 the petitioners and grant the requisite relief in terms of instructions dated 24.10.2008. The petition is accordingly allowed. (AJAI LAMBA) November 06, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?