IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.17914 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 22, 2011. Sukhdev Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of 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 order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. CWP No.17914-11 [2] The petitioners who are serving retired Head Teachers/ETT/JBT Teachers from the Education Department, Government of Punjab, seek quashing of the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of proficiency step up on completion of 8/16/24/32 years service under the ACP Scheme dated 25.9.1998 and also the benefit of 4/9/14 years of service under the Instructions dated 3.11.2006. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by the judgments of this Court in CWP No.7642 of 2001 (Shashi Kiran and others versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.11.2002 and CWP No.6135 of 2003 (Varinder Pal versus The State of Punjab and others, decided on 5.7.2005. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the decisions of this Court in Shashi Kiran's and Varinder Pal's cases (supra) and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Shashi Kiran's and Varinder Pal's cases (supra). In case the petitioners' claim is found covered under the aforesaid decisions, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 22, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE