Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maghar Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 July, 2015

Author: Arun Palli

Bench: Arun Palli

                  CWP No.18275 of 2013 & Ors.                                 -1-



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                          CHANDIGARH

                  1.                               CWP No.18275 of 2013
                                                   Date of decision: 15.07.2015

                  Maghar Singh and another
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
                                                                  ... Respondents

                  2.                               CWP No.1255 of 2014

                  Manmohan Kaur and others
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
                                                                  ... Respondents

                  3.                               CWP No.1854 of 2014

                  Sukhbir Singh and others
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
                                                                  ... Respondents

                  4.                               CWP No.9436 of 2015

                  Monika and another
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
                                                                  ... Respondents

                  5.                               CWP No.8787 of 2015

                  Pooja
                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
                                                                  ... Respondents

                  6.                               CWP No.22212 of 2012

                  Pargat Singh and another
                                                                    ... Petitioners
                                                Versus
                  State of Punjab and others
RAJAN
2015.07.21 17:29
                                                                  ... Respondents
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
                   CWP No.18275 of 2013 & Ors.                                         -2-



                  CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

                  Present:     Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
                               Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, 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?
                                                     ***
                  ARUN PALLI J. (Oral)

On May 13, 2015, in CWP-18275-2013, this court had passed the following order:

"Contends that pursuant to the letter dated 20.10.2010 (Annexure P-6), services of all the Teaching Fellows who were initially appointed on contract basis and on a consolidated salary, were regularised and they were placed in a regular pay scale of the post of ETT Teacher w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Likewise, orders dated 09.11.2011 and 04.04.2012 (Annexures P-8 and P-9, respectively) reveal that services of some of the candidates, who were selected and appointed along with the petitioners, were regularised from the date of their appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response to paragraph-8 of the petition, the precise stand set out by the State in its written statement is, "the services of the petitioners are to be regularized from the date of their appointments as per Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9 in which the services of the teaching fellows have been regularized with effect from their date of joining". That being so, it is submitted that the petitioners are ready to be regularised from the date of their appointment.
Learned State counsel submits that the matter in issue is under review of the competent authority and a decision in this regard would be reached at the earliest. He prays for only a week's time in this regard.
RAJAN 2015.07.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.18275 of 2013 & Ors. -3-
Adjourned to 20.05.2015.
To be taken up immediately after the Urgent cases."

Today the learned State counsel has produced a copy of the order dated 03.07.2015, passed by Director Public Instruction Elementary, Punjab, vide which the services of the petitioners have been regularized from the date of their joining and they have been granted the benefit of notional pay fixation from the said date, but without any financial benefit/arrears. That being so, learned State counsel submits that nothing substantive survives in these petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that though the principal relief being claimed in these petitions have since been granted, the same be disposed of as having become infructuous. But since the benefit of pay fixation w.e.f. the date of joining has been denied to the petitioners, they would resort to the remedy admissible in law. Particularly, when the said benefit was extended by the department to identically placed employees.

Disposed of as infructuous.





                                                                  ( Arun Palli )
                  July 15 2015                                        Judge
                  Rajan




RAJAN
2015.07.21 17:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh