SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were possessing qualifications of JBT Teacher, were appointed as Social Education Workers in the same pay scale as of JBT Teacher. Initially their appointments were on ad hoc basis but vide order dated September 21, 1982 (Annexure P-3) and January 28, 1996 (Annexure P-4), petitioner No. 1 was regularised w.e.f. October 1, 1980, whereas the other petitioners were regularised w.e.f. October 22, 1982. Vide order dated June 28, 1991 (Annexure P-5), the State of Punjab abolished the Adult Education Scheme w.e.f. June 30, 1991, under which the petitioners were working as Social Education Workers. In the year 1991-92, the petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers in the Education Department. It may be observed here that while giving the petitioners appointment as JBT Teachers, it was specifically mentioned in their appointment letters that they shall have to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit that they will not claim any benefit of their past service as Social Education Workers towards seniority as JBT Teacher and they would only have their seniority reckoned as JBT Teacher w.e.f. the date of their appointment. All the petitioners gave the requisite affidavits.

(2.) Under the Punjab Government Instructions, in order to avoid stagnation, proficiency steps ups were given after eight and eighteen years of regular service. The petitioners claim that for the purpose of counting eight or eighteen years of regular service for the grant of proficiency step ups, the service rendered by them on regular basis as Social Education Worker be counted. This having been denied the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. It may be observed here that it is the case of the respondents that the gap between the abolition of the post of Social Education Worker on the termination of the scheme and the fresh appointments of the petitioners as JBT Teachers those who remained present in the office of the different District Education Officers has been considered on duty and those who did not turn up were asked to apply for leave of the kind due. In other words, the Government regularised the gap in the services of the petitioners by either treating them on duty or taking the gap period as leave of the kind due. The case of the respondents in the written-statement is that as JBT Teachers, the petitioners were appointed afresh and they had specifically given in writing by way of an affidavit that they will not claim the prior service as Social Education Worker towards seniority and therefore, no benefit of that service can be given for purpose of counting eight or eighteen years of regular service for purpose of proficiency step ups.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are not claiming the service rendered by them as Social Education Workers for purpose of seniority but what they are claiming is that their regular service as Social Education Workers w.e.f. the dates they were regularised as such should be reckoned for the purpose of eight or eighteen years of regular service for the grant of proficiency step ups.