Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Paul Sharma And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 February, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.19449 of 2009.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.19449 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.02.2010
****
Rajinder Paul Sharma and others . . . . Petitioners
VS.
State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
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?
****
Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
*****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). The petitioners are employed as Masters/Teachers in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a direction to the respondents to grant them the benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.1971 instead of 16.07.1975. CWP No.19449 of 2009.doc -2- (2). The afore-stated benefit is sought on the strength of a recent decision of this Court dated 24.03.2009 rendered in CWP No.2208 of 1989 rendered in Lekh Raj Khera and others vs. State of Punjab and others, the operative part of which read as follows:-
"In view of the above legal and factual position, this petition succeeds partially. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay revision in case of petitioners w.e.f. 1.11.1971 instead of 16.7.1975. They are further directed to fix the pay scale of such of the petitioners whose unrevised pay falls between two stages in the new time scale in the revised scale in the next stage. The process of fixation of pay be completed within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. The consequential benefit be released in favour of the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter."
(3). Mr. Chahal, learned State counsel though does not dispute that the issue raised in this writ petition stands answered in favour of the petitioners in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra) decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, he, however, contends that the State might prefer LPA/SLP against the said judgement. (4). Counsel for the petitioners undertake that even if no LPA or SLPs would be preferred in their individual cases, yet the petitioners shall abide by CWP No.19449 of 2009.doc -3- the final decision that may be rendered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal and/or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra).
(5). In view of the above undertaking, the writ petition is allowed in part in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra). The petitioners are also held entitled to the consequential benefits as have been granted in the above-mentioned judgement. This shall, however, be without prejudice to the right of the State of Punjab to challenge the above-mentioned Single-Bench decision before the Appellate Bench and/or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the final decision(s) shall be equally binding upon the petitioners, even if no separate LPA/SLPs is filed in their case(s). (6). The needful shall be done with a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(7). Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
03.02.2010
vishal shonkar