http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DALBIR KAUR KALYAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/05/2000

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, Ruma Pal

JUDGMENT:

     D.P.  WADHWA,J.

     We grant leave to appeal.

     Fourth  appellant  Daljit Kaur Chadha, a teacher,  was granted  State Award on 5.9.1988 in recognition of  valuable services  rendered  by her to the community as a teacher  of outstanding  merit.   At the time of the grant of Award  she was  working  as  a  Principal   in  the  Government  Senior Secondary  School, Sector 8, Chandigarh.  She was to  retire on  28.2.   1999 on attaining the age of superannuation.   A notification dated 26.2.1999 was accordingly issued retiring her  on 28.2.1999.  However, on the basis of the State Award and  recognition  of  her  outstanding  merit  she  was  re- employed  with effect from 1.3.1999 for one year.  This  was by  order  dated 9.3.1999 of the State of Punjab, the  first appellant.   The  order of re- employment was issued by  the Secretary  Education,  Punjab  with   the  approval  of  the Department  of  Personnel and Administrative  Reforms.   For extension  of  services  for one year State  Government  had relied on its instructions dated 9.10.1989.

     This  order  of  the State Government  dated  9.3.1999 extending  the services of Daljit Kaur Chadha was challenged by  the respondent Dalbir Kaur Kalyan in a writ petition  in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  Respondent had contended that  extension of service of Daljit Kaur Chadha was illegal being  in contravention of the later Government instructions dated  6.5.1997.   High Court agreed with the contention  of the  respondent,  allowed the writ petition and quashed  the order  dated  9.3.1999.   It,   however,  directed  that  no recovery be made from Daljit Kaur Chadha from the emoluments paid/payable  in  lieu  of  services   rendered  by  her  on re-employment/extension  in  service  till the date  of  the judgment,  i.e., dated 11.10.1999.  Against this judgment of the High Court present appeal has been filed.

     On  6.5.1997  Government  of   Punjab,  Department  of Personnel  and Administrative Reforms issued a letter to all its  departments  communicating decision of  the  Government that  in  future in no eventuality extension in  service  be given  to any employee and in this connection reference  was made  to  three  letters  issued  by  the  State  Government earlier,   these  being  dated   17.2.1967,   4.1.1985   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

23.11.1990.  This letter we reproduce:  -

     "Subject:   Reg.  giving extension in service to Govt. Employees after attaining superannuation.

     Sir,

     I have been directed on the aforesaid subject to bring to your notice, Punjab Govt.  D.O.  Letters 727[4]- 67/4841, dated  17.2.1967,  No.  16/36/34-4 PP-1/162 dated  4.1.1985, No.   16/24/90-4PP/1.20218 dated 23.11.1990, that the  Govt. have  taken  decision  that in future in no  eventuality  no extension in service be given to any employee.

     2.   Please  comply  these instructions  strictly  and receipt of this letter be sent.

     Sincerely,

     Sd/- Karam Chand Ahuja, Jt.  Secy.  Personnel."

     It will be seen that this letter dated 6.5.1997 of the State  Government  does  not  refer   to  the  letter  dated 9.10.1989  under  which extension of service is  granted  to teachers,  who  are winners of State Award.  This letter  we also reproduce:  -

     "Subject:   Incentive to the State Awardee Teachers of the State of Punjab- policy regarding.  ---------

     Reference on the subject noted above.

     2.   Sanction  of  the President of  India  is  hereby accorded  to the grant of one year re-employment in  service after  superannuation to teachers of Punjab Education Deptt. who  are winners of State award, if they are physically  and mentally fit, purely on the basis of their merit as adjudged by their winning of the State Award.

     3.   The  State  Awardees who are re-employed  may  be asked  to  deposit the principal amount of the  award  money received  by  them, an undertaking in writing may  be  taken that  interest at such rate as may be decided by Government, will  also be payable by the awardee while principal  amount of  award  will  have  to  be  recovered  from  the  Awardee initially after this decision.

     4.   This  issue with the concurrence of  the  Finance Deptt.  conveyed vide letter dated 30.7.1987.

     5.  This policy will take off on the 5th."

     High  Court  in  its impugned judgment has  held  that letter  dated 9.10.1989 has also been impliedly withdrawn by letter dated 6.5.1997.  Reference was made to the minutes of the  meeting  dated 26.2.1997 of the Council  of  Ministers, Government  of  Punjab, whereby it was "decided  that  after amending  the already issued instructions in no  eventuality in  future,  no extension be given to any employee".   State Government  in  its  counter  affidavit in  the  High  Court submitted that Punjab Government had laid a policy issued by its letter dated 9.10.1989 "which clearly shows to the grant of one year re-employment in service after superannuation to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

teachers  of Punjab Education Department who are winners  of State  Award".   It was submitted that it was only  on  that basis  that the case of Daljit Kaur Chadha was examined  and decision  was taken to extend her services for another year. When  the  letter  dated 6.5.1997 does not at all  refer  to letter  dated 9.10.1989 it is difficult for us to appreciate as  to  how the High Court could say that this  letter  also impliedly  stood  revoked  by  decision of  the  Council  of Ministers  of the State of Punjab.  Teachers clearly fall in category  of their own for the purpose of extension of their service.   Instructions  dated  6.5.1997  do  not  apply  to teachers who are winners of the State Award.

     We,  therefore,  allow  the   appeal,  set  aside  the impugned  judgment  of the High Court and dismiss  the  writ petition  filed by the respondent.  There shall be no  order as to costs.