SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sukhwinder Kaur is working as Sewing Teacher in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kapurthala. Earlier she was appointed against a leave vacancy and her services were terminated. When permanent vacancy occurred, she was again appointed on 24.12.1980. Vide Annexure P-4 dated 27.1.1981 passed by the District Education Officer, Kapurthala, the petitioner was ordered to be adjusted in the grade of Rs. 570-1080. This order was passed in response to an enquiry made by Headmaster, Government High School, Talwandi District Kapurthala as the grade was not mentioned in the order of appointment. Subsequently the petitioner's services were regularised, vide order Annexure P-7 dated 12.6.1986. However, the grade of 480-880 was mentioned in this order for Sewing Teachers. The petitioner submitted representation, copy Annexure P-8, for adjustment in the grade of Rs. 570-1080. She also submitted another representation. Ultimately, order Annexure P-10 was passed by the District Education Officer addressed to the Principal of the school, which is dated 24.9.1986, mentioning therein that the petitioner was to have the grade of Rs. 480-880. However, she was wrongly allowed the grade of Rs. 570-1080. The grade of Sewing Teacher with effect from 1.1.1978 was to be fixed at Rs. 480-880. In this petition, the petitioner challenges order Annexures P-5 and P-10 whereby it was directed that the petitioner should be fixed in the scale of Rs. 480-880 instead of Rs. 570-1080. Challenge is also to the order Annexure P-7 wherein she was accordingly fixed in the grade of Rs. 480-880.

(2.) Similar matter came up for consideration in this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1416 of 1981 Smt. Santosh Kumari v. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 25-2-1982, operative portion of which reads as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Tailoring Mistresses under the instructions from the Finance Department of the Government could not be allowed the grade of Rs. 570-1080. This contention cannot be accepted as the matter has already been considered by this Court in two decisions referred to above.