Tara Chand Master Ghs, Talwara Khurd, Sirsa, and Others. Vs. State of Haryana Through Its Secretary to the Government - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071330
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-09-2013
AppellantTara Chand Master Ghs, Talwara Khurd, Sirsa, and Others.
RespondentState of Haryana Through Its Secretary to the Government
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.16462 of 1998 (o&m) date of decision:09. 09.2013 tara chand, master, ghs, talwara khurd, sirsa, and others...petitioners.versus state of haryana, through its secretary to the government, department of education, haryana, chandigarh, and others....respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan ---- present: none for the petitioners.mr.harish rathee, senior dag, haryana. ---- k.kannan, j. (oral) 1. the petitioners have a grievance in the writ petition that they should be given higher scales on their acquiring higher qualifications as giani and prabhakar on the same scales which the language teachers in oriental courses like sanskrit were given. this was held by the judgment of this court in cwp no.1718 of 1993, dated 31.03.1994 to be arbitrary. in terms of the said judgment, cwp no.13560 of 1997 was also allowed giving benefit of higher grade admissible to language teachers having prabhakar and giani qualifications.”2. the counsel states that higher scales were granted to all the teachers having prabhakar/giani qualifications, but in view of the kumar sanjeev 2013.09.10 16:13 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh civil writ petition no.16462 of 1998 (o&m) -2- supreme court judgment in state of haryana versus sumitra devi (2004) 12 scc 322.the benefit was extended only from the date when a fresh notification was issued and to those persons, past benefits from the date when the impugned notification was issued under p5 was not given. since the petitioners.grievance has been partly redeemed by a subsequent notification said to have been passed, as per the representation of the counsel for the state, i find that no further reliefs could be extended to the petitioners.3. there is no representation for the petitioners.but i have still proceeded to examine the case on merits and with the assistance of the counsel for the state.”4. the writ petition is disposed of on the above observations. (k.kannan) judge 09 09.2013 sanjeev kumar sanjeev 2013.09.10 16:13 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16462 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:

09. 09.2013 Tara Chand, Master, GHS, Talwara Khurd, Sirsa, and others...PetitioneRs.versus State of Haryana, through its Secretary to the Government, Department of Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioneRs.Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana.

---- K.Kannan, J.

(Oral) 1.

The petitioners have a grievance in the writ petition that they should be given higher scales on their acquiring higher qualifications as giani and prabhakar on the same scales which the Language teachers in Oriental courses like Sanskrit were given.

This was held by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.1718 of 1993, dated 31.03.1994 to be arbitrary.

In terms of the said judgment, CWP No.13560 of 1997 was also allowed giving benefit of higher grade admissible to Language Teachers having prabhakar and giani qualifications.”

2. The counsel states that higher scales were granted to all the teachers having prabhakar/giani qualifications, but in view of the Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.16462 of 1998 (O&M) -2- Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana Versus Sumitra Devi (2004) 12 SCC 322.the benefit was extended only from the date when a fresh notification was issued and to those persons, past benefits from the date when the impugned notification was issued under P5 was not given.

Since the petitioneRs.grievance has been partly redeemed by a subsequent notification said to have been passed, as per the representation of the counsel for the State, I find that no further reliefs could be extended to the petitioneRs.3.

There is no representation for the petitioneRs.but I have still proceeded to examine the case on merits and with the assistance of the counsel for the State.”

4. The writ petition is disposed of on the above observations.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09 09.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.10 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh