Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Purshottam Dass And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 May, 2012

CWP No. 9742 of 2012                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                   CHANDIGARH

                          CWP No. 9742 of 2012
                          Date of Decision: 22.05.2012


Purshottam Dass and others                               .......Petitioners

            versus

State of Punjab and another                              ......... Respondents


CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:      Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

                   ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):

Notice of motion.

Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG , Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to supply two copies of the petition to the learned DAG during the course of the day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioners, who are serving/retired Teachers/Masters/ Head Masters of the Education Department, Government of Punjab, by way CWP No. 9742 of 2012 2 of the present writ petition are seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to exercise their option within some reasonable period for the new revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1993 in terms of the notification/circular dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure P-2).

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would be has served a legal notice dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) and would be satisfied if the same is decided in terms of CWP No. 7464 of 2009, Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.02.2010.

I find it to be a fair request.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the afore-stated decision of this Court in CWP No. 7464 of 2009, Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others.

A copy of this order be given to learned DAG under the signatures of the Court Secretary.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 22, 2012 sunita