GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are employed as Lecturers in Government Colleges at different places in the State of Haryana. The petitioners through this writ petition have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay the salary for summer break period to the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed as Lecturers during the period commencing from the year 1976 to 1982 on ad hoc basis in the Government colleges in the State of Haryana with notional break. After the year 1982, the petitoners contimnued on ad hoc service without any break in service and were allowed salary and other benefits for the summer break period. But the petitioners were denied the benefit of salary for the summer break period prior to 1982. Mr. Sunil Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the denial of benefit of salary for the summer break period is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has contended that in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.1.1987 in case P.S. Chauhan v. State of Haryana, (CWP No. 4343 of 1986) the petitioners should also have been given the benefit of that judgment, denial of which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in CWP No. 4343 of 1986 were.

(3.) The State of Haryana in the written statement has taken a stand that the Government had filed a review application against the aforesaid judgment. But from the perusal of the record, it transpires that the review application was dismissed on July 14, 1988. There is another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 262 of 1986), decided on September 28, 1987, In Ram Avtar's case it was observed :-