CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2009 EDUCATION SECRETARY, U.T., CHANDIGARH ...PETITIONERS AND ORS. VERSUS SMT. LOVELEEN KAUR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. ANUPAM GUPTA, ADVOCATE WITH MR. PANKAJ GUPTA, ADVOCATE AND MR. GORAV TANGHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. R.K.SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. ANMOL RATTAN SIDHU, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, WITH MR. VIBHOR BANSAL, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. This order shall dispose of CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 and CWP Nos.19401, 19402, 19403, 19406, 19407, 19408, 19519, 19378, 19388, 19515, 19453, 19376, 19412, 19395, 19534, 19516, 19379, 19411, 19514, 19480 of 2007, as similar questions of law and fact arise in these cases and all the writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'). The original applicants before the Tribunal had basically claimed the relief of re-employment after their retirement on completion of CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 -2- 58 years of normal age of superannuation on any day falling between 1st day of April of the year and the last day of month of February of the succeeding year on the basis of 'The Punjab School Teachers' Re-employment Ordinance, 2006' later on converted into an Act known as 'The Punjab School Teachers Re-Employment Act, 2006' viz. Punjab Act No.23 of 2006. In some of the cases additional relief was claimed for re-employment wherever the Original Applicants were either national awardees or state awardees and the said relief was claimed on the basis of the instructions issued by the State of Punjab. The aforementioned reliefs were claimed by the Original Applicants on the strength of the notification dated 13.1.1992. 'Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Basandhi, 2004(1) SCT 680. The Tribunal disposed of all the Original Applications by a common order dated 1.6.2007, with the following findings/directions:- “a) Persons who are working as Officers as DEO, Principals, Headmasters and are not engaged in the work of teaching as per the clarification given by Annexure R-1, are not entitled to the benefits of the Punjab School Teachers' Re-employment Ordinance/Act, 2006. b) All the persons working as teachers in the institutions under the respondents in territory falling within the UT of Chandigarh are entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance/Act, 2006 ibid as the rights given under this Act fall within the CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 -3- meaning of 'conditions of service' as mentioned in the Notification dated 13.1.92, issued by the President of India and enforced in UT of Chandigarh. c) The deputationists who have been working in the institutions under the respondents in UT of Chandigarh are held entitled to the benefit of Act of 2006 as mentioned above like other teachers of UT, Chandigarh. d) The State Award winners of National Award winners are not entitled to re-employment/extension of service after reaching the age of superannuation as a matter of right, but have only a right of consideration at the hands of the respondents subject to their being fount fit and suitable, and if such reemployment/extension is found to be in public interest. e) The teachers, who had been relieved and were not protected by interim orders of the court and have meanwhile been retired, would not get any benefit of this judgement. However, the teachers who were working with the respondents under the interim orders of the court and in whose favour the findings have been recorded to the effect that they are entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance/Act of 2006 of State of Punjab are entitled to receive their pay and allowances as per the provisions of the Act mentioned above, as reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. Needless to say that persons in those cases where, interim relief was not granted, even otherwise would not have continued beyond 31st of March, 2007, the teachers who were protected by interim orders and have CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 -4- performed their duties under the respondents shall also stand retired w.e.f. 31.3.2007”. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by this Tribunal, Chandigarh Administration has filed the present writ petitions claiming the following relief:- “Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated June 1, 2007, Annexure P/8, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh to the extent it holds that the teachers working in the Union Territory, Chandigarh are entitled to get the benefit of the Punjab School Teachers Reemployment Ordinance, 2006 and the Punjab School Teachers Reemployment Act, 2006 which replaced the said Punjab Ordinance, that the persons working on deputation in the Institutes of Union Territory, Chandigarh are entitled to the benefit of reemployment after superannuation as per Section 3 of the aforesaid Act and that the Teachers working in the Union Territory, Chandigarh who have won the State/National/Award have a right of consideration for re-employment/extension of service after reaching the age of superannuation.” That while challenging the order of the Tribunal the Chandigarh Administration has raised number of legal issues. When these cases were taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the learned Tribunal while entertaining the Original Applications of the contesting respondents in these cases had granted interim relief in their CWP No.19533-CAT of 2007 -5- favour which remained in operation till disposal of the Original Applications. Consequently, all the contesting respondents completed the relevant academic session in terms of the provisions of Re-employment Ordinance/Act of 2006 (supra). It was also stated that they were paid the necessary dues as a result of the re-employment and were no longer in service. Thus in the aforementioned circumstances, nothing survives in these writ petitions so far as claim against the Original Applicants/contesting respondents is concerned and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, the legal points raised by the Chandigarh Administration in these cases are left open to be decided in appropriate case(s). Parties to bear their own costs. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 18, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE