HARJIT KAUR Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court on 11.12.2001 while disposing off C.W.P. No. 19219 of 2001 issued directions to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order was supplied to them. In case the claim of the petitioner was to be denied, then the respondents were required to pass a speaking and reasoned order. It was further require to communicate the order to the petitioner. In reply to the notice to show cause, the stand taken by the respondents is that the case of the petitioner was recommended to the DPI/District Education Officer, U.T. Chandigarh for granting aid and for giving approval for the grant of revised pay scale to the petitioner because she was appointed against the post held by Mrs.Narinder Kaur, who was on extraordinary leave from 1.7.2002 to 30.9.2003. The case has been kept pending by the Education Department and the petitioner has been working against unaided post. The pay scale given is Rs.1800- 3200, which was prevalent in the year 1997 (R-3). When the matter came up for COCP No. 1522 of 2004 -2- consideration on 1.2.2006, counsel for the respondents sought time to seek instructions with regard to the status of the petitioner as P.G. Teacher. He was to further point out as to why the pay scales of P.G. Teacher was not being given to the petitioner. At the hearing today, an affidavit dated 27.2.2006 has been filed in the Court. Sh.Paramjit Singh, Manager of the school has taken the stand that the petitioner would be paid enhanced salary of Rs.550+660, as the same amount of salary is being given to four senior P.G. Teachers of the Institution. It has further been deposed that no P.G. Teacher working in the Institution has been given revised pay scale of Rs.6400-10600 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed dissatisfaction over the pay scale granted to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the directions issued by this Court stand complied with and no further adjudication in these proceedings would be necessary. Accordingly, rule is discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the action of the respondents, at an appropriate forum, if so advised. February 28,2006 (M.M. KUMAR) Jiten JUDGE