GIAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before dealing with this case on merits, it is necessary to mention that Gian Kaur petitioner No. 1 has died during the pendency of the present writ petition and, therefore, her petition is rendered infructuous. Rajinder Kaur petitioner No. 3 has since been appointed on regular basis by the Departmental Selection Committee as Social Studies Mistress on 3.8.1989. Her relief is, thus, limited to arrears of pay from the date her services were dispensed with till such time she was given regular appointment.

(2.) All the petitioners were appointed as Social Studies Master/Mistresses on ad hoc basis through Employment Exchange in the Punjab Education Department against regular posts. Whereas petitioner No. 1 who has since died was appointed on 24.7.1976, petitioner No. 2 was so appointed on 28.8.1975 and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on 24.7.1976 and 21.8.1976 respectively. All the petitioners were relieved from their services on 23.6.1980, except petitioner No. 1. All of them had put in about four years ad hoc service. It is the admitted position that some of the similarly situated Social Studies Masters/Mistresses who were in a similar fashion relieved from their services had preferred a writ petition. On the same parity and reasoning as the present writ petition has been filed. A statement by the learned State counsel was made in that writ petition, i.e. C.W.P. No. 5948 of 1983 which runs as follows:-

(3.) It is true that the judgment in C.W.P. No. 5948 of 1983 has been passed after taking into consideration the statement made by the learned State counsel on 26.8.1980 wherein it was undertaken that if the petitioners are found eligible, they shall be retained in service. That, however, in my view would not make the least difference in the case, for the simple reason that the State in the present case could also not have taken a different stand and had to make the same statement as was made in the earlier case. Even after making the statement as referred to above, the petitioners of the earlier case were not regularised thus compelling them to file C.W.P. No. 5948 of 1983. It will be inequitousnot to grant the same relief to the present petitioners who are admittedly, senior to those who had filed C.W.P. No. 5948 of 1983. The petitioners are, thus entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 5948 of 1983 i.e. they will be entitled to continuity in service, seniority benefit and increments etc, but shall not be entitled to back wages. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.