- (1.) This order will dispose of two civil writ petitions nos. 3324 of 1990 and 4875 of 1990 as common questions of law and fact are involved.
(2.) The petitioners, who had been working as Headmasters/Headmistresses in the Education Department of the State of Haryana, were selected as Project Officers through the Haryana Public Service Commission, to serve in the Rural Functional Literacy Project, which was being financed partly by the Government of India and partly by the Haryana Government. Under the letters of appointment Annexure P-1 dated November 25,1981, it was provided that the post of Project Officer was purely temporary in duration. In para No. (iii) of Annexure P-1, it was provided hereunden- "In case or resignation or discharge on grounds other than the abolition of the post (except as a result of disciplinary action) one month's notice or one month's pay and allowance in lieu thereof will be required to be paid on either side. In case, you may hold substantive post at presently you will be liable to reversion to that post without notice." The petitioners accepted the conditions of appointment, and accordingly, joined the posts in question in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1700/-. In the meantime, the pay scale of the Headmaster/Headmistresses, who were drawing their pay in the scale of Rs. 800-1600 in Non-gazetted Class HI posts, was revised to Rs. 2000-3500 and they were given the status of Class II posts, whereas the pay scales of the Project Officers were revised to Rs. 2200-4000 and redesignated as Class I posts. It appears that in the year 1990, the scheme under which the petitioner had been inducted as Project Officers was wound up and the petitioners who were rendered surplus were returned to the parent Education Department under order Annexure P-6 dated February 28, 1990. Prior to the winding up to the project and apprehending that they would be retrenched, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court praying that the respondent-State be restrained from winding up the department. This plea of the petitioners was not accepted and the Supreme Court observed that "it was always open to the Government to continue or discontinue with the scheme". The petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions, praying basically for two roll is firstly that this Court issue a direction restraining the respondents from abolishing the posts of Project Officer and secondly, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust them against Ex-cadre posts of equal status and pay.
(3.) Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the first point does not survive any more in view of the fact that the posts have already been abolished and the Supreme Court has put its approval on this action in the words quoted above, but he has submitted that as far as the second point is concerned, the matter still survive because as a consequence of the reversion of the petitioner, they have lost their status as Class I Officer and their salaries and pay scales have also been brought down as the pay scale of Headmaster is Rs. 2000-3500, whereas that of the Project Officer was Rs. 2200-4000. He has also urged that the respondents were adopting a policy of pick and choose and while allowing some Project Officers, specifically named in the petition, the same pay scale on their reversion to the parent Department, have declined this benefit to the petitioners. He has also relied upon Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd), Jind, Haryana vs. State of Haryana and another,1989 1 RSJ 619, in which it has been observed that on retrenchment the State must ensure that the employees are appointed in alternative jobs.;