IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 06.11.2025 HARSUKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...... Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Ms. Jasmine, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) whereby, the claim of the petitioners for grant of retiral benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn by them while working on the higher post of Block Primary Education Officer (BPEO) on officiating capacity, has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working on the post of Central Head Teachers in the Department of Education, Punjab. At the time of their retirement, the petitioners were working on the post of BPEO on officiating basis. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioners, along with other similarly placed persons, filed a writ petition before this Court, being CWP No.16930 of 2014, seeking directions to the respondents to grant retiral benefits taking into consideration the pay scale of the post of BPEO, which they were drawing while working on officiating capacity.

3. The above said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2014 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation/ legal notice submitted by the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

4. In pursuance to the above said order passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioners was partly allowed and the petitioners were held entitled for grant of benefit of minimum pay scale of the post of BPEO only for the period during which they have discharged the duties and responsibilities of the higher post.

5. In regard to the claim for grant of retiral benefits by taking into consideration the last pay drawn while working on officiating capacity on a higher post is concerned, a committee was constituted by the respondents to look into the matter. The committee rejected the claim, holding that the last pay drawn on account of working on officiating capacity on higher post could not be taken into account for the purpose of fixation of retiral benefits.

6. Aggrieved against the above said action of the respondents, the petitioners, along with others similarly placed persons, filed a Civil Writ petition before this Court being CWP No.6505 of 2018.

7. It transpires that during the pendency of the above said writ petition, similar relief was granted by this Court in CWP No.17358 of 2015 titled 'Jagjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-7) wherein, the respondents were directed to fix the pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of last pay drawn by them.

8. In view of above, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners within a period of six weeks by passing a speaking order.

9. In compliance of the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) vide which, the claim of petitioners for taking into consideration the last pay drawn while working on a higher post on officiating capacity for the purpose of retiral benefits was rejected.

10. A perusal of the order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) would show that the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioners, had taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No.300 of 2016 titled K. Sreedhar Rao Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi', decided on 06.09.2019

11. Aggrieved against the above said order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for direction to