IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4891 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 18, 2010. Datar Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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) In this civil writ petition filed in the year 2010, the petitioners, who are retired Classical & Vernacular Teachers, seek a mandamus to grant them the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.11.1971 in stead of 16.7.1975. The claim of the petitioners is based upon a decision dated 24.3.2009 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2208 of 1989 (Lekh Raj Khera and others versus State of Punjab and another). The petitioners are said to have staked their aforesaid claim by way of a legal notice dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-9) also. The afore-stated relief has been sought on the strength of a recent decision of this Court dated 24.3.2009 rendered in CWP No.2208 of 1987 (Lekh Raj Khera and others versus State of Punjab and others), the C.W.P.No .4891 of 2010 2 operative part of which reads as follows:- “In view of the above legal and factual position, this petition succeeds partly. 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 such of the petitioners whose unrevised 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.” On the other hand, Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, though does not dispute that the issue raised in this writ petition stands answered in favour of the petitioners in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), decided by a Co-ordinate Bench, she, however, contends that the State may prefer LPA/SLP against the said judgment. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that even if no LPA or SLPs would be preferred in this case, yet the petitioners shall abide by the final decision that may be rendered by this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), as the case may be. In view of the above undertaking, the writ petition is allowed in part in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra). The petitioners are also held entitled to the consequential service benefits as have been granted in the above mentioned judgment. This shall, however, C.W.P.No .4891 of 2010 3 be without prejudice to the right of the State of Punjab to challenge the above-mentioned decision before the Appellate Bench and/or the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the final decision(s) shall be equally binding upon the petitioners, even if no separate LPA/SLPs is filed in their case(s). The needful shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. March 18, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE