Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharti Gupta And Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 May, 2015
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
CWP No.12023 of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12023 of 2015
Date of decision: 29.05.2015
Bharti Gupta and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate, for the petitioners.
***
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?
***
ARUN PALLI J. (Oral)
Writ in the nature of mandamus is prayed for, so as to direct the respondents to remove the pay anomaly between senior and junior ETT teachers in Zila Parishad Sangrur, that has resulted on account of implementation of ACP scheme on completion of four years of service qua the persons, who were junior to the petitioners. And consequently, a direction is sought to the respondents to step-up the pay of senior teachers so as to bring the same at par with the juniors, in terms of the Government instructions dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure P3). It is averred that the petitioners were appointed as teachers in 2006 and January 2007 and received the benefit under ACP scheme in 2010. Their juniors, who joined the services in November 2007, were afforded the RAJAN 2015.05.30 13:09 benefit under the scheme in November 2011. As a result, their I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.12023 of 2015 -2- pay was fixed at a higher level than the petitioners. That being so, vide letter dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure P5), the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Development-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Patiala, issued instructions to BDPO, Samana, to remove the anomaly in pay of the ETT teachers. Resultantly, the anomaly as regards Nabha and other blocks of District Patiala has since been removed but not in blocks Malerkotla-I and Malerkotla-II, District Sangrur. Petitioners even represented to the respondents in this regard vide representation dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure P7). But to no avail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an apparent inaction at the instance of respondents No.6 & 7 i.e. Block Development and Panchayat Officers, Malerkotla-I & Malerkotla-II, respectively, as despite representation (Annexure P7) and lapse of a considerable time, their claim continues to await consideration. He submits that at this stage, let this petition be disposed of only with a direction to respondents No.6 & 7, to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P7), submitted by the petitioners, within a specified time.
That being so, and without expressing any opinion on merits, and particularly as regards the issue of delay/limitation, if any, this petition is disposed of only with a direction to respondents No.6 & 7, to consider and decide the RAJAN 2015.05.30 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.12023 of 2015 -3- claim of the petitioners, as set out in their representation dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure P7), strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Though, needless to assert, a comprehensive order shall be passed, assigning reasons in support of the decision arrived at.
( Arun Palli )
May 29, 2015 Judge
Rajan
RAJAN
2015.05.30 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh