- (1.) The petitioners, who are working on the post of Master in different subjects are aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in not determining their seniority in the light of Rule 11 of the Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. In the proviso to Rule 11, it has been clearly stipulated that in case of the cadre of members recruited by direct appointment it is the order of merit determined by the recruiting agency that shall govern the seniority. Learned counsel further contends that the issue stands covered in terms of a Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 9.7.2004 passed in CWP No. 19832 of 2003 titled as Charan Dass Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & others. Counsel further submits that even a legal notice dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure P-4) stands served upon the respondent-authorities but the same has not evoked any response.
(2.) In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider and decide the legal notice dated 19.7.2012 (Annexure P-4), referred to herein above, in terms of passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(3.) It is clarified that in the event of the petitioners being given the benefit of deemed seniority, they would also be entitled to all consequential benefits in the nature of ante dated promotion etc. However, it is clarified that the benefit of consequential pay fixation would be granted only on a notional basis. Petition disposed of.;