CWP NO.1072 OF 1988 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 03.11.2008 Joginder Kaur and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioners were engaged as Silai teachers on 23.1.1976. Though their initial appointment was on ad hoc basis, for a period of six months on temporary basis with a further rider that the services can be terminated at any time without giving any notice or without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.2.21982, all the petitioners were granted the pay scale of Silai Teacher working in the Classical and Vernacular Cadre. Though the petitioners were appointed in Classical and Vernacular Cadre, however, they were not placed in the scale meant for Silai teachers i.e. the pay scale of Rs.170-350 revised to Rs.570-1080 w.e.f. 1.1.1978 and continued in the pay scale of JBT teachers i.e. Rs.150-3000 revised to Rs.480-880 CWP NO.1072 OF 1988 :2: w.e.f. 1.1.1978. The petitioners filed CWP No.5839 of 1981 for grant of higher pay scale of Rs.170-350 from the date of their appointments and the revised scale of Rs.570-1080 w.e.f. 1.1.1978. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of vide Order dated 3.3.1982 passed by this Court in the following manner:- “Mr.S.K.Sayal contends that in view of the averments made in the written statement filed in Court today, the petitioners have been granted the grade claimed by him and they will be paid the arrears according to rules. That being so, this writ petition has become infructuous. Disposed of as such.” Consequent upon the aforesaid observations, the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Classical and Vernacular Teachers and were also paid the arrears of service right from the date of their appointments. In the meantime, under the Government Policy, the employees having more than one year service were sought to be regularized on completion of one year period as on 31.3.1977. Thereafter another Government policy was issued on 28.10.1980 for regularization of the employees working on ad hoc basis. This was followed by other policy decisions dated 26.10.1982 and 29.3.1985. There is nothing on record to show whether at any stage, the petitioners were regularized or not. However, the fact remains that the petitioners continue to serve without any break. Vide order dated 27.10.1987, the respondents converted the posts of Classical & Vernacular Teachers to the lower one and reduced the pay scale of the CWP NO.1072 OF 1988 :3: petitioners from Rs.570-1080 to Rs.480-880. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that the issue regarding their Cadre has already been settled in CWP No.5839 of 1981 on the basis of the statement/written statement of the respondents and thus, the impugned order changing the status of the petitioners from C & V teachers to the lower one i.e. Silai Teachers in the lower pay scale is illegal and unwarranted. In prayer Clause, the petitioners have accordingly sought a direction not to implement the impugned order or reduce their salary or effect the recovery from them. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that similar point was raised in another case of Domestic Science Teachers who were given the grade of Rs.170/350 revised to Rs.570-1080 instead of Rs.125/300 revised to Rs.480-880 and the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1159 of 1983 (Manjit Kaur vs. State) dismissed the writ petition vide order (Annexure R-1). The order of dismissal was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.423 of 1984 (Annexure R-2). It is further stated that in CWP No.5839 of 1981 filed by the petitioners, wrong commitment was given by the concerned Officer of the Department of Education and because of wrong impression that these posts are borne on C&V teachers cadre and necessary action is being taken against the concerned defaulter. Based upon aforesaid averments in the reply, it is argued by Mr. Sahu that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Though in case of Domestic Science Teachers, this Court dismissed the writ petition CWP NO.1072 OF 1988 :4: where the petitioners therein claimed higher pay scale in the Cadre of C & V teachers and SLP has also been dismissed. However, these judgments are of no avail to the respondents for the simple reason that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, the respondents conceded their status and also granted the pay scale of C & V teachers to them by implementing the observations made by the court recorded on the basis of the written statement filed by the respondents. The said judgment has not been challenged or reviewed till date. In any case, the higher pay scale was given to the petitioners not on their misrepresentation or fraud. Even if the contention of the respondents is accepted, the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioners. It is also settled proposition of law that even if law is changed subsequently, a judgment which has attained finality remains intact. Under the given circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.10.1987 passed by the respondents qua the petitioners is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to change the status of the petitioners and not to effect any recovery from them. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 03.11.2008 MFK Note:Whether to be reported to reporter or not:NO