IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.18183 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 27, 2011. Dr.A.C.Bajaj .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the petitioner. 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. Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. 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. CWP No.18183 of 2011 [2] The petitioner who is working as Medical Officer in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him Post Graduate increments as per the Notifications dated 21.8.1990 (Annexure P-1) and 27.10.1993 (Annexure P-1/A) which has been withdrawn without any intimation to him. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled vide a judgment of this Court dated 1.7.2009 passed in CWP No.17156 of 2008 (Dr.Jagmohan Singh and others versus The State of Punjab and others) (Annexure P-5). The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Dr.Jagmohan Singh's case (supra) and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Dr.Jagmohan Singh's case (supra). In case the petitioner's claim is found covered under the aforesaid decision, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioner 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. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 27, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE