IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.15636 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 25, 2011. Dara Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners who are employees of the Printing and Stationery Department, Government of Punjab, seek quashing of the order/letter dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-7) to the extent it says that their pay is to be fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986, as earlier directed by this Court, for the purposes of retiral benefits only and no arrears of the same are payable. CWP No.15636 of 2011 [2] They further seek a direction for revision of their pay scales notionally for the period from 1.1.1986 to 8.2.1989. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in this case stands answered by this Court in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 27.4.2010 passed in CWP No.16653 of 2009 (Varinder Kumar and others versus State of Punjab and another) in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others versus Bhupinder Singh and others, 2004 (2) SCT 409, followed by this Court in Gur Kirpal Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.4.2006. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Varinder Kumar's case (supra) and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid decision. In case the petitioners' claim is found covered under the said decision, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. August 25, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE