JAI CHAND SSM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this court through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefit of adhoc service rendered by them towards granting of medical allowance, earned leave / medical leave from the date of their adhoc appointment as these benefits have been made available to the other similarly situated persons in terms of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in Rattan Lal 's case (1986 lab IC 1599) and for also granting benefits in terms of order dated January 6, 1995. Reported in (1995) 2 Cur LJ (CCR) 127 passed in CWP No. 4050 of 1994 decided in Haryana Rajkiya Adhyapak Sangh verses State of Haryana and others.

(2.) THE facts stated by the petitioners are that they are working as teachers, masters, lecturers etc. in various schools in the State of Haryana. Prior to their regularization, they had rendered adhoc/temporary service. Originally, the petitioners were denied the salary of summer vacation period for which they had worked in various schools. However, on March 29 1996, the respondents issued general order because of the directions issued by this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India in various cases, that salary be paid to all the teachers who were denied the same for the period of summer vacation. The aforesaid communication dated March 29 1996 has been attached as Annexure P.2 with the present writ petition.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that due to the payment of aforesaid salary of the summer vacation period, the service of the petitioners had been treated as continuous and their ado/temporary service had been recognized by the respondents for the purposes of annual increments, pensioner benefits, higher grade etc. However, the adhoc/ temporary service was not being counted for the grant of medical leave, medical allowance, earned leave and maternity leave etc. Claim made by the petitioners is that they are entitled to the aforesaid benefits because the matter has been finally settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ratan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 Serv LR 548 : (1986 lab IC 1599) and in the case of Haryana Rajkiya Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 4050 of 1994 decided on 6 -1 -1995. The petitioners have stated that an SLP No. 20692 of 1998 has also been dismissed by the Apex Court on August 24, 1998 which was filed by the Haryana State against the orders passed in Haryana Rajkiya Adhyapak Sangh 's case (supra). Copy of the orders dated 6 -1 -1995 passed in CWP No. 4050 of 1994 has been appended as Annexure P. 4 whereas the copy of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated August 24, 1998 dismissing the Special Leave Petition has been appended as Annexure P. 6 with the petition. The petitioners even sent a legal notice dated November 17, 2000 to make available all benefits of adhoc service to them. However, the District Education Officer, Karnal sent a reply dated March 22, 1999 and refused to grant the aforesaid benefits of the adhoc service rendered by the petitioners by merely observing that the aforesaid benefits has been granted only to such teachers who had approached the Court. A copy of the aforesaid reply has been appended as Annexure P. 12 to this petition.