IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5770 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.2.2009. Nirmal Singh and others ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners are working as Lecturers/Masters/Mistresses/Teachers in various Govt. schools in district Kapurthala. Petitioners acquired higher qualifications. The Punjab Govt. vide letter dated 23.7.1957 decided to give the benefit of higher pay scales to the such of the teachers, who acquired higher qualifications. A number of writ petitions came to be filed in this Court by such of the employees, who were denied the benefit of this letter. All such writ petitions were allowed and the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been dismissed. The Punjab Govt. vide notification dated 17.2.1989 revised the pay scales of the teaching staff of the Education Department including those of the petitioners of earlier writ petitions w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Under the pay revision rules an option was given to the teachers to exercise for revised pay scales from the date of next increment falling after 1.1.1986 but not later than 31.12.1987, irrespective of the post held by such an employee. The CWP No. 5770 of 1998 (O&M) -2- option was to be exercised within a period of four months. Admittedly, the petitioners did not exercise the option within the period of four months prescribed in this regard. The petitioners, however, exercised the option for opting the revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1988. The claim of the petitioners has not been considered. The issue involved is squarely covered by two Division Bench judgements of this Court dated 16.8.1994 passed in CWP No. 2587 of 1987 and dated 21.11.1995 passed in CWP No. 18380 of 1994 and other connected matters. In the aforesaid last quoted judgement the following directions were issued:- “ In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to revise their option under the Rules of 1988. If for this purpose, it becomes necessary the Govt. should pass order under Rule 12 for the relaxation of the relevant rule regarding exercise of options and its finality. Necessary order should be passed by the competent authority within three months of the submission of the certified copy of this order.” Apart from the above directions, the Court issued general directions, which reads as under:- “ Keeping in view the fact that there may be many other similarly situated persons, we deem it proper to direct the respondents in general and respondent no.2 in particular to give similar opportunity to exercise revise option to other persons so that they may not be compelled to approach this Court and thereby unnecessarily add to ever increasing number of cases. Such a course would also be in a large public interest and would save public exchequer from the expenses etc. which are required to CWP No. 5770 of 1998 (O&M) -3- be incurred for defending the cases in the court. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” Mr. Chahal submits that he wants to verify whether any appeal stands preferred. Mr. Kakkar submits that no appeal has been preferred. In view of this matter, this petition is allowed in terms of the above mentioned order. All consequential benefits shall be released in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.2.2009 lucky