RAMESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue raised in these petitions relates to the interpretation of the circulars dated 1.12.1988, 9.8.1989, 1.9.1989 and the notification dated 17.2.1989 issued by the Government of Punjab. In view of the similarity of the prayers made in all the petitions they are being decided by a common order.

(2.) Brief facts C.W.P. No. 5692 of 1990 The petitioners Ramesh Kumari and others are working as Teachers/Masters in various schools under the Education Department of Government of Punjab. They are aggrieved by the circular dated 1.9.1989 by which the Government of Punjab issued certain clarifications regarding the implementation of the instructions contained in the circular dated 1.12.1988. The petitioners say that by refusing to count the ad hoc service rendered by them prior to regularisation of their services, the respondents have discriminated them inasmuch as they will be deprived of the benefit of proficiency step up on completion of 8 and 18 years of service. Similarly, the decision of the Government not to count service rendered by them on higher post will result in double jeopardy on reversion from the higher post because they will lose the benefit already earned by promotion to the higher post and they will also be deprived of the benefit of the instructions contained in the circular dated 1.12.1988. The petitioners have prayed that the instructions contained in the circular dated 1.9.1989 be quashed and the respondents be directed to grant them proficiency step up(s) on the basis of the circular dated 1.12.1988 and they be also restrained from making recovery from the pay of the petitioners on the basis of the circular dated 1.9.1989.

(3.) In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that the clarifications contained in the circular dated 1.9.1989 became necessary in order to remove the doubts entertained by the competent authorities. It has also been pleaded that if a person has been promoted to the higher post and he/she is reverted to the lower post after some time, the service rendered on the higher post cannot be counted for the purpose of extending the benefit specified in circular dated 1.12.1988. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioners cannot retain the benefits unlawfully earned by them on the basis of mistake committed by the departmental authorities by granting higher monetary benefits to them. C.W.P. No. 5692 of 1990.