CWP No. 5428 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 01, 2010 1. CWP No. 5428 of 1991 Joginder Singh ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents 2. CWP No. 5429 of 1991 Sudesh Kumari ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. These petitions arise out of similar facts and similar questions of law are involved therein. Consequently both are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 5428 of 1991. CWP No. 5428 of 1991 2 The petitioner was appointed as Teacher on ad hoc basis. As per order of the Government dated 19.2.1979 (Annexure P-2) it was decided that those Teachers who had acquired higher qualification prior to the issuance of the said letter would be granted a higher pay scale. Since this was denied to the petitioner, the present writ petition was filed. In reply the stand taken is that the services of the petitioner were regularised after the cut off date (even though it was not disputed that the petitioner had attained qualification prior to the date of issuance of the letter Annexure P-2) and thus was not entitled to the benefit. Reliance was placed on a clarification which has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. In my opinion document Annexure R-1 no where lays down that a person whose services were regularised after 19.2.1979 is disentitled to claim this benefit. Apart from that learned counsel has relied upon Rajinder Kumari v. State of Punjab reported as 1988(4) SLR 297 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “5. In the foregoing circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that the benefit of circular Annexure P-2 shall be available to the petitioners even though they were in ad hoc employment provided the ad hoc employment was continuous and ultimately was regularised. In this case, since the ad hoc employment with effect from May 16, 1977, continued until the petitioner was appointed on regular basis, which fact has not been disputed, the petitioner is held to be entitled to be brought in Group 2, Category B, and has also to be paid higher scale applicable to that category. Since it is stated that even on the date she was appointed originally on ad hoc basis on May 16, 1977, she possessed the requisite qualification, the petitioner shall be placed in Group II, Category B, with effect from that date and paid salary on that basis as revised from time to time. CWP No. 5428 of 1991 3 In the result, the petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.” Learned DAG is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment. Consequently these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be granted higher pay scale in terms of letter Annexure P-2 and Annexure R-1. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 01, 2010 sunita