CWP No.6126 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.4. 2011 Swarn Lata ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at motion stage itself without insisting for reply. The short issue involved in this petition is for grant of equal pay to the petitioner who was working as Instructor at par with her juniors. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in this petition is no more res integra having been settled by this Court in the case of Harnek Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, CWP No.9561 of 1988 decided on 8.12.2008 wherein following CWP No.6126 of 2011 2 observations/directions have been made:- “...In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioners and the Lecturers in the Education Department were in different cadre of service, however, in para 25 it is stated that the anomaly in the pay scales of Senior Instructors was removed and they were allowed the pay scale of Rs.620-1200 instead of pay scale of Rs.570-1080 originally recommended by the 2nd Pay Commission. Thus, the respondents also admitted the anomaly in the pay scale after the 2nd Pay Commission and anomaly stands removed. Since the anomaly itself is admitted, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.700-1300 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to the next pay revision on 1.1.1986, if such benefit has not already been granted. The respondents will accordingly determine the arrears if any payable and pay the same within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is made available to respondents.” This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations/directions. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.4. 2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 3