IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 763 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 2, 2011 Charanjit Singh and others …Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. JUST JUST JUST JUSTICE ICE ICE ICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. M.M. M.M. M.M. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the interim order dated 3.3.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition has been admitted and recovery from the appellants has been stayed with a further direction that the order concerning re-fixation of pay like the one dated 10.12.2010 (P-26) may be implemented. 2. Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned senior counsel has argued that by interim order the effect of order dated 9.6.2006 (P-12) would be nullified and it would result into grave prejudice to the appellants. According to the learned counsel the re-fixation of pay by the aforesaid order equivalent to Shri Prem Chand Bhatia is absolutely justified. 3. Having heard learned counsel and without expressing L.P.A. No. 763 of 2011 (O&M) 2 any opinion on the merit of the controversy we are of the view that the interim order dated 3.3.2011 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. The learned Single Judge while admitting the writ petition filed by the appellants has stayed recovery but has permitted implementation of the order dated 10.12.2010 (P-26). There are arguable points and a blanket stay of the order dated 10.12.2010 (P-26) has not been considered appropriate at the stage of admission. Accordingly, we are of the view that no interference is called for. 4. The argument of the learned counsel that the order dated 9.6.2006 (P-12) has been nullified does not need any consideration because the aforesaid order stood superseded by subsequent orders culminating into passing of order dated 10.12.2010. The whole dispute centres around the order dated 10.12.2010 which has withdrawn the stepping up of pay of the appellants which was fixed equivalent to that of their junior Shri Prem Chand Bhatia. Additionally, the dispute is also related to adoption of instructions of the State of Punjab by the respondent bank concerning anomaly. Accordingly, we find that the argument is wholly frivolous and does not merit acceptance. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) May May May May 2, , , , 20 20 20 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor