Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on March 3, 1981 in the Department of Social Security of Women and Child Development, Punjab and served as such till she superannuated on July 31, 2015 on attaining the age of 60 years. She has approached this Court after retirement seeking a declaration to the respondents to grant her benefit of pension by declaring her case is not covered by the Contributory Pension Scheme, 2004. While she was in service, the department issued an advertisement to fill vacancies of Supervisors out of which two posts were reserved for sons/daughters and grand -daughters of Freedom Fighters. The petitioner was a daughter of Freedom Fighter. She applied under the category reserved for non -graduate Anganwari workers. There was prescribed a written test and interview where she secured 80 marks in the recruitment process conducted in July 1996. The petitioner was not selected and on the other hand, two graduate teachers of Freedom Fighter category were selected in February 1997. Appointment was offered to Inderjit Kaur and she joined on the following day. However, Gurvinder Kaur did not join. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 15543 of 2008 claiming a preferential right of appointment in terms of the Punjab Government instructions dated 22.5.1989 and 19.6.1991 asserting that being the daughter of a Freedom Fighter she had a preferential right over Inderjit Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur to be appointed as Supervisor. The following order was passed on April 29, 2010 in the said writ petition: - "The petitioner is daughter of a freedom fighter. She seeks quashing of appointment of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to the posts of Supervisors in the Department of Social Security and Development of Women and Child, Government of Punjab, on the ground that she has a preferential right to seek such appointment over and above respondent Nos. 3 & 4 who are the grand -children of freedom fighters. On a re -consideration of the petitioner's claim, it is informed by learned State counsel that the State Government is willing to appoint the petitioner also. Since one Sarabjit Kaur d/o Sohan Singh, w/o Tarlochan Singh, resident of Village Jhande, P.O. Baddowal, District Ludhiana, is also a daughter of freedom fighter and above the petitioner in order of merit, the official respondents agree to offer appointment to her as well. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and also to offer appointment to Sarabjit Kaur, as mentioned above, if she is willing to join the post. It is directed that Sarabjit Kaur (if she joins) and the petitioner shall be treated senior to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the cadre of Supervisors for seniority and future promotions. However, they shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay etc. but their pay shall be notionally fixed w.e.f. the date of appointment of respondent No. 4."
(2.) Counsel argues that the petitioner was appointed under the directions of the Court and has to be treated senior to respondent No. 3 & 4 in that petition in the cadre of Supervisors. The petitioner was granted seniority and future promotions by treating her as senior to the two persons arrayed as respondents. However, the petitioner was held not entitled to any arrears of pay etc., but her pay was directed to be notionally fixed w.e.f. the date of appointment of respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 3 & 4 were Inderjit Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur. In implementation of the order dated April 29, 2010, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor on November 29, 2010. There was a condition in the appointment letter dated November 29, 2010 that the petitioner would not get pensionary benefits and her case would be covered vide notification dated January 12, 2004 and shall be governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NDCP) which was introduced for new entries to Punjab Government services. The other instructions on the subject are dated December 12, 2006 [Annex P -5]. In short, the petitioner has not been made a member of GPF Scheme and she has been put in the CPF scheme. The pay of the petitioner was fixed notionally at par with Gurvinder Kaur w.e.f. January 1, 1997. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition placed in the letter of appointment dated November 29, 2010 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be quashed.
(3.) The Court direction granting seniority from the date when Inderjit Kaur was appointed as Supervisor deems the appointment from February 3, 1997 the day on which the grand -daughter of Freedom Fighter was appointed by ignoring the preferential rights of the petitioner being a daughter of Freedom Fighter. The other significant facts which deserve to be noticed are that when the vacancies of Supervisors were filled one Usha Rani and others complained that the merit of selected candidates had not been properly drawn in accordance with rules and a number of persons who were ineligible and lower in merit had been selected and appointed. The selection was challenged through CWP No. 1926 of 1997 titled as 'Usha Rani & ors. v/s. State of Punjab & ors.' and connected cases. The petitioner was not a party to those petitions. This Court vide order dated April 2, 1998 directed the second respondent therein to inquire into the matter and submit its report. The report was submitted on August 4, 1998. The writ petitions were finally disposed of by issuing a direction to the Government to terminate the services of Supervisors who have been illegally appointed and to do so within 6 months. These directions invited review applications in the disposed of writ petitions. In the review applications, a direction was issued to the State Government to get the issue re -examined after hearing all those candidates, who are likely to be effected either itself or through some Committee, after giving them opportunity of filing objections against the report and to take a final decision thereon. Directions in the review applications dated May 19, 2005 led to constitution of a committee headed by an IAS Officer, who prepared and submitted a report on February 27, 2007. The Committee in its report qua the two posts which fell in the quota of Freedom Fighters recommended the names of Inderjit Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur for the post of Supervisors. The petitioner complains in this petition filed in the year 2016 that the recommendations of the committee in its report dated February 27, 2007 were totally contrary to the instructions dated May 22, 1989 and June 19, 1991 (Annex P -2 colly]. Aggrieved by the report, the petitioner approached this Court in CWP No. 15543 of 2008, which has led to the passing of order reproduced above. The petitioner came to be appointed for the first time on November 29, 2010 pursuant to the High Court order.;