M.M.S. Bedi, J.@mdashPetitioners have preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P6) in which retrospective approval of termination of the petitioners has been
granted by respondent No. 2, Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh.
The order Annexure P6, reads as follow:-
In exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule 51(4) of Haryana School Education Rules 2003 and u/s 8(3) of Haryana School Education
Act 1995 approval of the discharged employees/teachers of Vidya Mandir Sr. Sec. School Sector 15-A, Faridabad, an institution of Adarsh
Mahila Shiksha Pratishthan Society, is hereby granted as the matter has been considered afresh as per Hon''ble High Court orders dated
17.12.2008 in CWP No. 14331, 14333, 14699, 14707, 14734 of 2007 and CWP No. 2923, 2924, 3182, 3183 of 2008 in the facts and
present circumstances of the cases on the basis of application submitted by the School Society and on the basis of report of District Education
Officer Faridabad. But it will be in the interest of discharged teachers/ employees that all the pensionary benefits under Rule 10 of Haryana Aided
Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001 may be granted to the discharged/terminated teachers/staff of Vidya
Mandir Sr. Sec. School, Sector 15-A Faridabad, for the service rendered by them on the aided sanctioned posts upto 31.3.2006 and necessary
action may be initiated by the School Society accordingly as per rules and all the dues, if any, found payable to the discharged employees on the
part of school management, may also be paid by the School Society immediately as per rules.
Anurag Rastogi
Commissioner & Director General School
Education, Haryana, Chandigarh.
2. The petitioners claim that they had been employed by respondent No. 4, Managing Committee of Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School,
Sector 15-A, Faridabad, Haryana, having joined on 24.2.1979 and 19.5.1980 respectively but their services have been terminated w.e.f.
31.3.2006 after service of 23 years and 13 years respectively.
3. It is apt to refer to the judgment of this Court Annexure P7, passed in CWP No. 17710 of 2009, titled Smt. Raj Bala and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 18.11.2010. In the above petition, the office order Annexure P6, dated 19.3.2006, was challenged by the co-
employees of the petitioners. In the said writ petition the termination of similarly circumstanced teachers was held to be valid w.e.f. 19.3.2009.
They were deemed to be in service till then. It was held that they would be entitled to emoluments/salary at the admissible rates from the date of
initial termination i.e., till the date of grant of approval i.e., 19.3.2009. It was directed that the claims of the said petitioners will be determined and
paid within a period of three months. The LPA No. 938 of 2012 filed by Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School was dismissed on 15.1.2013.
4. Mr. R.D. Sharma, learned State counsel has submitted that the State cannot be foisted with any liability with grant-in-aid as sanction has already
been stayed w.e.f. 1.4.2006. The said fact has already been mentioned in Annexure P6 and stands decided vide judgment in case Smt. Raj Bala
and others (supra).
5. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued that the case of the petitioners will be considered in the light of
judgment in case Smt. Raj Bala and others (supra). The judgment in above case has not been followed by the respondents while passing order
Annexure P8. The order Annexure P8 also deserves to be set aside.
6. In view of above said circumstances, this petition deserves to be disposed of in the same terms as in Smt. Raj Bala and others (supra).
Following the judgment in above case, it is held that the services of the petitioners will be deemed to have been validly terminated w.e.f.
19.3.2009. They will be deemed to be in service till then. It is further held that the petitioners are entitled to the emoluments/salary at the
permissible rates from the date of initial termination till the date of grant of approval i.e., 19.3.2009. It is directed that the claim of the petitioners
will be determined by the respondents afresh within a period of three months. The order Annexure P8 is also quashed. Disposed of as stated
above.
