CWP No.6190 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 20.05.2011 (1) CWP No.6190 of 2011. Amarjit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (2) CWP No.5799 of 2011 Charanjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (3) CWP No.5805 of 2011 Banarsidas Mehta and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (4) CWP No.6138 of 2011 Ramnika Nayyar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (5) CWP No.7730 of 2011 Iqbal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (6) CWP No.7932 of 2011 Joginder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another (7) CWP No.8191 of 2011 Vidya Vati and others Vs. State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. SK Rattan, Mr. RC Chatrath, Mr.RK Arora,Mr.Ranjivan Singh, Ms. Alka Chatrath, Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocates,for the petitioners. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners joined as Master/Mistress in the Education CWP No.6190 of 2011 -2- department. The Government of India appointed Kothari Commission to recommend the pay structures, method of recruitment, training and qualification etc. In the year 1966, the Kothari Commission made its recommendations for revision of pay scales of teaching personnel. The recommendations of the Commission aforesaid were accepted by the State- respondents. The pay scales of classical and vernacular teachers were revised after five years vide order dated 19.06.1971. However, the pay scales of the petitioners were revised from 16.07.1975. The pay scales of the petitioners had been fixed at the lower stage. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been deprived of all the benefits of recommendations of Kothari Commission in the matter of revision of pay with effect from 1.11.1971. Most of the petitioners have retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. The State-respondents withdrew certain benefits already granted to the petitioners. It is this action of the respondents which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.2208 of 1989 (Lekh Raj Khera and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), on 24.03.2009 wherein the following observations have been made:- “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 the such of the petitioners whose un- CWP No.6190 of 2011 -3- revised 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. 24.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE” The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present writ petition. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in Lekh Raj Khera's case. However, the claim for arrears is restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petitions. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the record of other connected files. 20.05.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE