CWP-23403-2017 216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT SUMITRA SHARMA AND ORS. HARYANA SCHOOL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate for Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent which reflects that the payment of salary being given to the petitioners is as of the Finance Department, Haryana and the salary has already been fixed in the 7 with effect from 01.12.2022 presently getting remuneration with increment, enhancement of DA and fixed medical allowance and salary of Rs.76,696/ 2. Nothing further is required to be ordered in the present case, where the petitioners were seeking quashing of Rule 12 of Shiksha Priyojna Parishad Service By 2017 (O&M) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUMITRA SHARMA AND ORS. Vs. HARYANA SCHOOL SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA **** Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate for Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent which reflects that the payment of salary being given to the petitioners is as of the Finance Department, Haryana and the salary has already been fixed in the 7th pay matrix including DA and fixed medical allowance with effect from 01.12.2022. It also reflects that the petitioners presently getting remuneration with increment, enhancement of DA and fixed medical allowance and salary of Rs.76,696/ Nothing further is required to be ordered in the present case, where the petitioners were seeking quashing of Rule 12 of Shiksha Priyojna Parishad Service By-Laws, 2013. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23403-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 . . . . Petitioners SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for Ms. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate for SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent which reflects that the payment of salary being given to the petitioners is as per the approval of the Finance Department, Haryana and the salary has already been pay matrix including DA and fixed medical allowance It also reflects that the petitioners are presently getting remuneration with increment, enhancement of DA and fixed medical allowance and salary of Rs.76,696/- per month. Nothing further is required to be ordered in the present case, where the petitioners were seeking quashing of Rule 12 of Haryana School Laws, 2013. (O&M) .2025 s . . . . Respondent In view of the affidavit filed by the respondent which reflects that the per the approval of the Finance Department, Haryana and the salary has already been pay matrix including DA and fixed medical allowance are presently getting remuneration with increment, enhancement of DA Nothing further is required to be ordered in the present case, where the Haryana School MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.23 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23403-2017 3. It is on account of their service had been taken over in the regular pay scale be in any manner unjustified. 4. Writ petition is, t and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 22.04.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2017 (O&M) p. 2 It is on account of their services rendered on contract basis that they had been taken over in the regular pay scale be in any manner unjustified. Writ petition is, therefore, found to have been rendered infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No rendered on contract basis that they had been taken over in the regular pay scale, which cannot be said to herefore, found to have been rendered infructuous, All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No rendered on contract basis that they which cannot be said to herefore, found to have been rendered infructuous, MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.23 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document