IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A.No. 293 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.7.2009
State of Punjab and others
......Appellants
Vs.
Tara Chand Mehta
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has been preferred by the State against judgment of
the learned Single Judge directing grant of lecturer grade to respondent No.1
w.e.f. 1.12.1967 with consequential benefits.
2 Respondent No.1 was working as a teacher in an added school.
He filed writ petition in the year 1988 claiming benefit of lecturer grade in
terms of Circular dated 21.6.1968 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 1.12.1967. The
petition was contested with the objection that there was no sanctioned post
of lecturer and, therefore, the said scale could not be given to him.
3 Learned Single Judge held that recommendation letter from the
school showed that he was teaching higher-secondary classes and was thus,
entitled to the lecturer grade. Direction was accordingly issued to give
lecturer grade w.e.f. 1.12.1967 with all consequential benefits The
respondent was also held entitled to the interest from the date of filing of the
petitioner till the date of payment at the rate of 6% per annum.
4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
L.P.A.No. 513 of 2009 [2] 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition
was itself filed in the year 1988 and there was no question of arrears being
paid for the period of more than three years prior to the filing of the writ
petition and there was no question of interest being paid from the date of
filing of the writ petition. It was also submitted that as per Circular
Annexure P-1, lecturer grade was to be given only if there was sanctioned
post and as per letter of the School Annexure P-3, no post of lecturer had
been sanctioned in the school.
6 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute that
there was no post of lecturer at the relevant time. He submitted that
recommendation for sanctioning of the post had already done. He further
submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the entire payment has
been made in contempt proceedings and respondent No.1 is now 78 years
of age, as he had retired in the year 1991 at the age of 60 years.
7 Even though in absence of sanctioned post of lecturer,
respondent No.1 would not have been entitled to the lecturer grade and
particularly to the arrears for the period of more than three years preceding
filing of the writ petition, the payment having been made, we do not find
any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
8 The appeal is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
July 24, 2009 JUDGE
raghav
Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ……..Yes/No