IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.468 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 22.1.2008 Kaushal Kumar Bhatia ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate vs. Sh.Sarvesh Kaushal & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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) The petitioners who were working as Masters/Mistresses in Government Senior Secondary/High Schools in the State of Punjab, filed C.W.P.No.8112 of 1990 seeking a direction for refixation of their pay with effect from 1.1.1978. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on March 16, 1998 with a direction that in terms of a previous judgment of this Court in the case of Rawail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab etc., dated 1.3.1995 passed in C.W.P.No.17005 of 1989, “the pay of the petitioners be stepped up equal to the one being drawn by other Masters and Mistresses immediately junior to the petitioners irrespective of the fact that the petitioner joined the service with post-graduate qualification before 1.1.1978 or acquired Post Graduate qualification before that date.” Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the present contempt petition has been filed. C.O.C.P. No.468 of 2007 -2- In response to the show cause notice, the respondents have filed their reply/affidavit taking a plea that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with in true letter and spirit. The sole question as to whether or not the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of this Court, rests upon the fact as to whether any person junior to the petitioners in their cadre of Masters/Mistresses has been getting higher pay than the petitioners. Concededly, no such instance has been brought on record either before the Authorities or in these contempt proceedings. Consequently, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of wilful or deliberate defiance of the directions issued by this Court. This contempt petition is accordingly disposed of, however, with liberty to the petitioners to impugn the reasoned orders passed by the respondents before an appropriate forum, if so advised. Rule discharged. January 22, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE