35 years on, teachers get increment
Saurabh Malik/TNS
Chandigarh, October 16
Nearly 35 years after Punjab teachers refused to observe “mass strike”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the release of an additional increment. The directions came two decades after the teachers moved the High Court for the grant of financial incentive.
Allowing the petition, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa asserted: “The respondents are directed to release one premature increment for non-participation in strike on February 8, 1978, to all these petitioners irrespective of the fact whether they were ad hoc employees on the relevant date or on maternity or medical leave.
“This is subject to the condition that ad hoc employees were in regular pay scale. Let the benefit accruing to the petitioners be released within a period of four months…”
The directions came on a petition by Amarjit Kaur and other petitioners against the Punjab Government and other respondents. They had joined service with the Education Department on ad hoc basis between 1975 and 1977 before their services were regularised between 1980 and 1982.
Their counsel contended that Punjab Government’s Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued a letter on June 16, 1978, granting financial incentive of one premature increment to employees not participating in a mass strike on February 8, 1978. The petitioners did not participate in the strike, but were denied the benefit on the ground that it was available only to non-gazetted regular government employees.
In response to the petition, the state and its functionaries averred in the written statement that the services of the petitioners had not been regularised on the date of strike. Since there was no call for ad hoc non-gazetted government employees to observe strike, the petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of premature increment. Referring to a judgment dated May 18, 2009, passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Ramesh Chander and others versus the State of Punjab and others, Justice Dhindsa asserted: “Even ad hoc employees were held entitled to the benefit of premature increment…”
Saurabh Malik/TNS
Chandigarh, October 16
Nearly 35 years after Punjab teachers refused to observe “mass strike”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the release of an additional increment. The directions came two decades after the teachers moved the High Court for the grant of financial incentive.
Allowing the petition, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa asserted: “The respondents are directed to release one premature increment for non-participation in strike on February 8, 1978, to all these petitioners irrespective of the fact whether they were ad hoc employees on the relevant date or on maternity or medical leave.
“This is subject to the condition that ad hoc employees were in regular pay scale. Let the benefit accruing to the petitioners be released within a period of four months…”
The directions came on a petition by Amarjit Kaur and other petitioners against the Punjab Government and other respondents. They had joined service with the Education Department on ad hoc basis between 1975 and 1977 before their services were regularised between 1980 and 1982.
Their counsel contended that Punjab Government’s Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued a letter on June 16, 1978, granting financial incentive of one premature increment to employees not participating in a mass strike on February 8, 1978. The petitioners did not participate in the strike, but were denied the benefit on the ground that it was available only to non-gazetted regular government employees.
In response to the petition, the state and its functionaries averred in the written statement that the services of the petitioners had not been regularised on the date of strike. Since there was no call for ad hoc non-gazetted government employees to observe strike, the petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of premature increment. Referring to a judgment dated May 18, 2009, passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Ramesh Chander and others versus the State of Punjab and others, Justice Dhindsa asserted: “Even ad hoc employees were held entitled to the benefit of premature increment…”
No comments:
Post a Comment