IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

231

1. CWP-12562-2022 Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Gurdas Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

2. CWP-13076-2022 Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Nigam Swarup .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Ms. Divya Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sheetal Rana, Advocate, Ms. Yashika Chauhan, Advocate and Ms. Kashika Mahesh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This order shall dispose of above-referred two writ petitions as similar questions of facts and law are involved.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-12562-2022 titled as Gurdas Singh v. State of Punjab and others. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-7), whereby the pay scale of the post of Lecturer has been granted with effect from 01.09.1994 instead of 25.02.1989. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to re-fix/re-calculate the pay scale/salary of the petitioner with effect from 25.02.1989 i.e. the date of his initial posting in the college cadre and release the requisite benefits to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sanskrit Teacher, vide appointment letter dated 23.02.1989 in school cadre (Annexure P-1) and he joined as such on 25.02.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that right from his initial date of joining i.e. 25.02.1989, he was posted in the college cadre and continued to work there. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons were being reverted to the school cadre and against the said action, the petitioner filed CWP No.9431 of 1992, wherein the interim stay was granted to the petitioner and he continued to work in the college cadre. Finally, the said writ petition along with other bunch of petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) and LPAs preferred against the said judgment were also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.03.2013 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter, the said judgments were challenged by the petitioner and other similarly situated employees before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed on 01.09.2015 with the following observations/directions:-

“16. From perusal of the letter issued by the Punjab University, Chandigarh dated 27.6.1965 addressed to the Principal of all the Institutions affiliated with the University inviting attention to the office circular dated 27.11.1963, it is clear that the decision was taken at the meeting of the syndicate held on 19.10.1963 laying down the minimum qualifications for both the teaching staffs of the affiliated Institutions. It was further decided by the University that those teachers who are confirmed hands and over 40 years of age will be approved on the basis of their long teaching experience etc. even if they do not exactly fulfill the qualification.

17. As noticed above, the appellants have been working for the last 25 years in the respondent Institutions and teaching the students of the college. The reason given by the High Court is that for the purpose of claiming pay- scale at par with the college teachers, the minimum requirement is that one has to clear the State Level Eligibility Test. In our view, that condition will not apply so far the appellants are concerned as because on the date when they were appointed and transferred to the college there was no requirement for having the qualification of State Level Eligibility Test. The qualification of the candidate is considered at the time of appointment and not after rendering 25 years of service in the college.

18. The submission of the State counsel is that the appellant i