HOAT CHAND MIDDHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, we are disposing of 14 petitions, bearing C.W.P. Nos. 16346, 17517 and 18409 of 1994; 1747, 3249, 3294, 3295, 3296, 3297, 4282, 4829, 8368, 13300 and 16686 of 1995, as the points of facts and law involved in all these petitions are common.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners in all these cases are working in privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools and they have claimed the Proficiency Step (PROP) increments i.e. one additional increment after 8 years of service and an additional increment after 18 years of service respectively as have been granted to their counterparts working in Government Schools by the State of Punjab vide Memorandum No. 7/14//88-5PP(1)/2269/ 18527 dated Ist December, 1988, issued by the Punjab Government Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. In support of this claim, the petitioners have relied on Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and two Division Bench judgments of this court in C.W.P. No. 876 of 1988 Gulshan Lal Aul and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 24th March, 1994 and C.W.P. No. 3510 of 1993 Satish Kumar Duggal v. State of Punjab and others, 1996 1 SCT 158 decided on 17th May, 1994.

(3.) Notice of motion in all these cases was issued to the respondents. Written statement on behalf of the State has been filed in C.W.P. No. 3294 of 1995. In the written statement, inter alia, it has been stated that the petitioners are the employees of the concerned Managements of privately managed recognised (Aided) Schools and their terms and conditions of service are regularised by the concerned Managing Committee. It has further been stated that since the Punjab Civil Service Rules are not applicable to the employees of the Privately Managed Recognised (Aided) Schools, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits of proficiency Step up increments.