IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001
DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 11, 2009
MEHAR SINGH & ORS.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Salil, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. OP Dabla, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of two petitions viz. CWP 7663 of
2001 (Mehar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another) and
CWP 7664 of 2001 (Darshan Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and
another), as common questions of law and fact are involved.
The gist of the claim in both these petitions is for issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Notifications dated 17.2.1989,
3.5.1991, 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998, placed on record as Annexures P-12, P-
Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001 2
13, P-14 and P-15, respectively, in CWP 7663 of 2001, and as Annexures
P-14, P-15, P-16 and P-17, respectively, in CWP 7664 of 2001.
The short argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondents cannot make a distinction in pay scales
of teachers teaching Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages and Art
and Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers. It has
been impressed on the Court that vide Notification dated 17.2.1989, such
a distinction was made while giving additional benefits to the teachers
teaching Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages. The matter was
carried to this Court while challenging Notification dated 17.2.1989.
Considering the issue, this Court, while dealing with CWP 16380 of 1989
(Balbir Singh and others v. State of Punjab etc.) decided on 7.5.2009,
quashed Notification dated 17.2.1989, thereby holding that the
recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission are required to be accepted
in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even Art and Craft, PTI, MTI,
Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers would be entitled to the pay
scale given to Classical and Vernacular Teachers, teaching Punjabi,
Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit languages.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that
Notification dated 3.5.1991 was issued in amendment of Notification
dated 17.2.1989. Again, a distinction was made between the two sets of
teachers, as noticed above. Notification dated 3.5.1991 came to be
challenged in a bunch of 4 petitions. While dealing with the main petition
viz. CWP 14264 of 1991 (Harbhajan Singh Dhindsa and others v. The
State of Punjab and another), decided on 9.11.2009, this Court quashed
Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 2001 3
both Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in
these two petitions challenge is not only to Notifications dated 17.2.1989
and 3.5.1991 but also to subsequent Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and
8.1.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that following the
same ratio, even Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998 are required
to be quashed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that
Notifications dated 17.2.1989 and 3.5.1991 have been quashed by this
Court while dealing with Balbir Singh’s case (supra) and Harbhajan Singh
Dhindsa’s case (supra), these petitions are disposed of with directions to
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in regard to their
plea in challenge to Notifications dated 24.12.1992 and 8.1.1998. The
respondents would be required to consider the ratio as settled by this
Court while dealing with Balbir Singh’s case (supra) and Harbhajan Singh
Dhindsa’s case (supra), and pass appropriate orders within a period of 5
months of receipt of certified copy of the order.
November 11, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?