STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.versusSUPREET RAJPAL AND ANR. ETC.

                                                                               ~··

                                                                                \




A                  STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.
                                 v.
                   SUPREET RAJPAL AND ANR. ETC.

                           NOVEMBER 13, 2007
B
          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J


         Service Law:
C       Regularisation of service ofpart time lecturer-Filing of writ
  petitions by respondents-part time lecturers-:-Allowed by High Court
  directing Authorities to consider them for regularization-On appeal,
  Held: In the peculiar facts ofthe case, it would be appropriate for the
  High Court to deal with the matters a.fresh in the light ofthe judgment
D ofSupreme Court in the case ofHarguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State
  of Punjab & Ors.,-Thus, matter remitted to High Court for·
  consideration a.fresh.
          The question which arose for determination in these appeals
    was as to whether the High Court was right in directing the appellants
E   for regularization of services of the respondents-part time lecturers,
    though no such relief was sought for by them.
         Appellants contended that the prayer in the writ petitions was
    not for regularization of the services and the relief sought for by them
F   was different; and that by the impugned judgment, the High Court
    has directed to consider the case of the respondents for                         ~
    regularization de-hors the contractual clause indicated in the
    advertisement and mentioned in the terms of appointment.
         Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G         HELD: On the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate
    for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light ofwhat
    bas been stated in the decided case of Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors.
    v. State ofPunjab & Oi·s. The matters are remitted to the High Court

H                                    1124
         ..STATE v. SUPREETRAJPAL [PASAYAT, J.]                    1125

for consideration afresh. [1127-B]                                        A
     Harguru Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State ofPurljab & Ors. etc., C.A.
No. 8745 of2003 (decided by Supreme Court on 7.11.2003), relied
on.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5165- B
5167of2007.
    From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.12.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
20036/03, 3766/04 & 7500/04.
                                                                          c
      Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu, T.P. Mishra and Ajay Pal
for the Appellant.
     Ugra Shankar Prasad and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                           D    I




     DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division
Bench of the High Comt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowing
the writ petitions filed by the respondents who were appointed as part E
time lecturers with the following directions:
          "In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the
      respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for
      regularisation de-hors of the contractual clause indicated in the
      advertisement and also the same having been mentioned in the tenns F
      of appointment. If regularised, they shall also be considered for
      being placed in the regular pay scale with the initial pay payable
      accordingly. This entire exercise be carried out by the respondents
      within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
      this judgment. It may be clarified that in view of the fact that the G
      State has filed special leave petition against the judgment rendered
      in Ms. Maninder Kaur's case (supra), the result thereof shall also
      affect the consideration and the relief grantable and granted to the
      petitioners. This fact, may be specifically mentioned in the orders
                                                                           H
Jr
                  STATEv. SUPREETRAJPAL[PASAYAT,J.]                         1127

               pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly."     A

            6. It is also submitted that the case relied upon by the High Court
      has no relevance as it did not relate to part time lecturers and in fact
      related to some other part time engagements. It has also been submitted
      that in those cases also the matter has been remitted to the High Court. B
            7. On the peculiar facts of the case, we feel it would be appropriate
      for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what has
      been stated in Harguru 's case (supra). The matters are remitted to the
      High Court for fresh consideration.
           8. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to
                                                                                    c
      costs.
      S.K.S.                                             Appeals disposed of.




__,
 I