High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Sumitra Devi and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 4 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 P&H CK 0281

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 19478 of 2013 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 350 words

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioners are either working/retired from the posts of Masters/Mistresses under the Punjab Education Department. They were appointed as JBT/JV Teachers even though they possessed/acquired qualifications which were higher than the one prescribed for the post of primary teachers. Petitioners claim the benefit of letter dated 23.7.1957 issued by the State of Punjab whereby teachers working in the Education Department were held entitled to the pay scales as per the qualifications possessed by them irrespective of the post that they were holding. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the claim raised in the instant writ petition would be covered in terms of judgment dated 15.4.2009 passed by this Court in Baldev Raj Mittal and others v. State of Punjab, Annexure P-6. Learned counsel further submits that even a legal notice dated 23.5.2013, (Annexure P-8) already stands submitted. In the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners and to take a final decision on the legal notice dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure P-8) strictly in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

2.

It is clarified that in the eventuality of the claim of the petitioners being found covered by the decision of this Court in Baldev Raj Mittal''s case (supra), it would be open for the respondents to confine the benefit of fixation of pay on a notional basis and consequently to grant the revised arrears limited to a period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the present writ petition in respect of such petitioners, who are still in service. In so far as the petitioners, who already stand retired, upon notional fixation, the revised pensionary benefits be computed and even the arrears of such revised pensionary benefits be limited to a period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the present writ petition. Petition disposed of.