SAROJ RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no court fee could be paid for all the petitioners and the writ petition may be entertained only with regard to petitioner Promila Rani (No.29). Ordered accordingly. The office is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties.

(2.) The prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure P.9) to the extent it affects the interests of the petitioner. A further direction has been sought to the respondents to allow the petitioner the grade of language teacher in view of her qualification of Giani/ Prabhakar in the new revised scale of pay. Notice of motion to A.G. Haryana.

(3.) Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana who is present in the Court accepts notice of motion. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for hearing as it is covered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2000(1) RSJ 486. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the notification dated 7.1.1998 ( Annexure p.9) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. However, the petitioner who has received more pay on the date of publication of the rules i.e. 7.1.1998 w.e.f. 1.5.1996, the same are not to be recovered. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the concluding para 8 of the judgement. Shri Harish Rathee, learned State counsel could not successfully dispute the afore-mentioned proposition.