Punjab & Ors Vs. Dalbir Kaur Kalyan
 INSC 283 (3 May 2000)
Ruma Pal D.P. WADHWA,J.
grant leave to appeal.
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.
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.
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
23.11.1990. This letter we reproduce: - "Subject: Reg. giving extension in
service to Govt.
after attaining superannuation.
have been directed on the aforesaid subject to bring to your notice, Punjab
Govt. D.O. Letters 727- 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.
taken decision that in future in no eventuality no extension in service be
given to any employee.
Please comply these instructions strictly and receipt of this letter be sent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This issue with the concurrence of the Finance Deptt. conveyed vide letter
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 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.
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.
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.