- (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.1993 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2, whereby petitioners were denied the benefits of dearness allowance and other benefits against the sanctioned posts for want of requisite grant-in-aid by respondent no.1.
(2.) Briefly put, facts of the case are that petitioners were appointed by respondent no.2 in the year 1988. It is the pleaded case on behalf of the petitioners and supported by respondent no.2 as well that they were appointed against the sanctioned posts. Respondent no.2 has taken a stand in this regard referring to Annexure R-2./1 with its written statement. Document Annexure R-2/1 is a communication from respondent no.1 itself. However, since respondent no.1 was not taking specific decision in this regard and respondent no.2 was apprehending non-release of requisite amount of grant-in-aid for the posts held by the petitioners, impugned communication dated 13.9.1993 (Annexure P-5) was issued by respondent no.2, which gave the cause of action to the petitioners for approaching this court by way of instant writ petition.
(3.) Notice of motion having been issued, respondents filed their written statements. The only stand taken by respondent no.1 was the order dated 17.1.1994 passed by a Division Bench of this court in CWP No.908 of 1993 (Ajay Kumar Saxena and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). Vide order dated 17.1.1994, a Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition of employees like the present petitioners, primarily on the ground that they were not appointed against the sanctioned posts. On the other hand, respondent no.2 was supporting the cause of the petitioners at every relevant point of time, pleading that petitioners were entitled for the disputed service benefit, but the said benefit was being denied by respondent no.2, only because respondent no.1 was not releasing the requisite amount of grant-in-aid for the posts, which were held by the petitioners. Later on, additional affidavit dated 31.3.1995 was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and one affidavit dated 25.4.1995 was filed on behalf of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 also placed on record the norms for appointment of non-teaching staff, as per the strength of the students at Annexure R-2/3, claiming that the appointment of the petitioners was made strictly as per the norms set up by the respondent-State, vide its communication Annexure R-2/3. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing by a Division Bench of this Court dated 17.2.1996. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.;