IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7703 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 07, 2011 Bir Singh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Umesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition with a limited prayer for quashing the order dated 15.4.2009, vide which their prayer for grant them benefit of notional fixation of pay at par with juniors has been rejected. The petitioners had applied for appointment as Clerks pursuant to the advertisement issued on 15.10.1989. Initially, the Government had recommended the names of 1692 candidates for appointment in different departments. This action was challenged by filing a writ petition before this court and the matter was referred to a Full Bench. Ultimately, the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the view taken by the Full Bench was modified. Upon conclusion of all the litigation, the petitioners were appointed w.e.f. 1.10.1999. They challenged this action and prayed for grant of benefit of seniority w.e.f. 1990. The claim of the petitioners for grant Civil Writ Petition No.7703 of 2009 : 2 : of pay was rejected on the principle of “No work No pay”. The benefit of seniority, however, was granted to the petitioners. Through the present writ petition, the prayer is only for fixation of their pay notionally from the date the respondents have assigned seniority and not for payment of any arrears. Notice of motion was issued long ago and despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed. A year ago, this court had allowed the prayer of State counsel to file reply but subject to payment of ` 2,000/- as costs. It is not clear whether the cost has been deposited, but the reply still is not filed. More than a year has gone by, but still reply has not been filed. Mr.Rathee virtually has no explanation to offer for this lethargy on the part of the respondents. That being the position, no case for granting further time to file reply is made out. Rather, it is a fit case where right of the respondents to defend needs to be closed. The right of the respondents to file reply is closed and their defence is struck off. The necessary consequences would be that the averments made in the writ petition would be deemed to be correct for the purpose of passing this order. The prayer made in the petition is for grant of notional fixation of pay. It is so ordered. The pay of the petitioners would be notionally fixed from the date they have been assigned seniority. No arrears shall be paid from the date of seniority to date of appointment. However, the arrears from the date of appointment onwards on the basis of notional fixation of pay shall be paid. September 07, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE