CWP No. 16925 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 16925 of 2011 Date of decision: 09.09.2011 Devi Ram and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate with Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Petitioners herein are seeking direction to the respondents for the grant of admissible higher revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and other annual increments etc. in view of the order dated 25.03.2003 (P3) passed by respondent No. 3. It is contended that respondent No. 3 passed order dated 25.03.2003 (P3) revising the pay scale of the petitioners as under:- Pre revised scale Revised pay scale Pay fixed in the revised pay scale Date of next increment 750-940 2550-5200 11/01/96 2550 01/01/97 01/01/97 2605 01/01/98 01/01/98 2660 01.01.99 E.B. CWP No. 16925 of 2011 2 Thereafter, the petitioner sent representations dated 03.10.2003 (P4) and dated 31.01.2011 (P5) demanding the revised pay scale but nothing was heard from the respondents. Then, the petitioners served legal notice dated 09.03.2011 (P7 and P8). In response to the said legal notice, respondent No. 4 admitted that petitioners have been working with DRDA, Panipat but they were ignorant of the reasons as to why the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of pay revision as respondent No. 4 is only the borrowing department, whereas, respondent Respondent No. 3 is the parent department. Accordingly, the petitioners sent reminder to the parent department i.e. respondent No. 3, but Respondent No. 3 has not responded nor taken any action. It is further brought to the notice that one Jodha Ram, Helper who is equally placed as the petitioners in P-3, has already been granted the benefit. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 shall consider the contents of the petition as the comprehensive representations filed by the petitioners and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It goes without saying that in case, the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, speaking order shall be passed by the respondents. Disposed of in the above terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 09.09.2011 mohan