G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) Sita Devi Petitioner was recruited as a J. B. T. teacher by the Bhakra Dam Administration on 22nd Sept., 1956, and was posted in the Girls High School, Nangal Township The Nangal School was transferred from the Irrigation Department to the Education Department of the Punjab Government w. e. f. 1st Oct., 1960. On transfer, the Punjab Government determined the seniority of the persons from the Nangal School on the basis that they had entered the service of the Punjab Education Department w.e.f. 1st Oct., 1960. This order was challenged in C. W. No. 2598 of 1965 by one Pritam Singh which was allowed by judgment dated 23rd Sept., 1966 and it was held that the service rendered in the Nangal School had to be counted for purposes of determining the seniority of the teachers later on absorbed from that School to the Punjab Education Department. After the decision of the writ petition in Pritam Singh's case, Sita Devi Petitioner represented to the Education Department for the grant of due seniority and other benefits. By order dated 10th Sept., 1969, the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, decided that the persons who were working in the pay scale of Rs. 60-120 were entitled to the selection grade of Rs. 120-175 and allowed the benefit to all such persons according to their entitlement and the extract, Annexure P. 1, has been annexed with the writ petition which shows that Sita Devi petitioner was placed at seniority No. 3 - C and was allowed the selection grade w.e.f. 10th Oct., 1961. However, she was paid salary at the higher rate w.e.f. April, 1971, till the beginning of Nov., 1971, and w.e.f. Nov., 1971, she was again offered pay at a rate lower than the selection grade. She made representations, copies of which have been annexed with the writ petition as P 2 to P-4, but without any effect. Ultimately, she was served with an order of the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, by endorsement dated 18th March, 1974 (copy annexure P-5), to the effect that she had obtained the selection grade by misrepresentation as she had been allocated to Himachal Pradesh on 10th Oct., 1966, at Serial No. 12 of the allocation list of District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, and, therefore, the Himachal Pradesh Government was requested to issue orders for her posting in Himachal Pradesh. Sita Devi filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to impugn order annexure P-5.
(2.) When this writ petition was filed, according to the High Court Rules, advance notice had to be given to the respondents of the filing of the writ petition and about the making of prayer for stay, which was done in this case. The writ petition came up for hearing on 26th April, 1974, when appearance was put in on behalf of the Union of India as also the State of Punjab and the counsel for the respondents prayed for time to file replies. The case was taken up on 20th May, 1974, but no reply was filed and a prayer for further adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents which was granted. Finally, the Motion Bench admitted the writ petition on 18th July, 1974, as no return was filed and the interim stay order granted on 26th April, 1974, was allowed to continue till the decision of the writ petition. The result of the stay order is that the petitioner continued to serve as a teacher in the State of Punjab and it is stated at the Bar that she retired from service during the year 1979.
(3.) In the writ petition, it has been specifically averred in para 5 that there is no order of allocation of the petitioner to Himachal Pradesh and no order could be passed on 10th Oct., 1966, for her allocation to Himachal Pradesh as stated in annexure P. 5, because the State of Himachal Pradesh was created only w.e.f 1st Nov., 1966. It has further been highlighted in para 6(ix) of the writ petition that under section 82 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the. Act), it is the Central Government who were to pass an order of allocation of the persons serving in the erstwhile State of Punjab to the successor States and no such order was ever conveyed to the petitioner because under the same section she had a right to make a representation against her allocation and, therefore, it shall be deemed that she continued to be in the service of the State of Punjab alone.;