Civil Writ No. 15781 of 2001 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Writ No. 15781 of 2001 Date of decision: September 26,2011 Paul Mohinder Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG,Punjab for the respondents ... Ranjit Singh,J(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks similar direction as was passed in CWP No.4468 of 1992 on 27.5.2011, which is as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench judgment delivered by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4216 of 2011 titled as S.K.Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 9.7.2002, but the department is reluctant to examine the said judgment and apply the same in the case of Punjab also. Learned counsel has further stated that the Engineering Wing in the Agriculture Department was observed to be equal to the Engineering Wing of P.W.D. but they are deprived of the same relief which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Yadav's case (supra), in the case of Haryana. Under the circumstances, Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to decide the Civil Writ No. 15781 of 2001 2 matter by passing speaking order. If the judgment passed in S.K. Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable to the case of Punjab, then he would appear in this Court with an affidavit explaining as to why the judgment passed in S. K. Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.” Learned counsel further contends, that thereafter the respondents have allowed the claim made in the said writ petition and the said writ petition accordingly has been disposed of as having become infructuous. Counsel further contends that in fact S.K. Yadav's case, on the basis of which, directions were issued in CWP No. 4468 of 1992 pertains to 4th Pay Commission. Accordingly, he states that the present writ petition in any case would be more appropriately covered by S.K. Yadav's case (supra). The counsel accordingly prays for similar direction in this case as well. Learned State counsel have no objection to the prayer so made. The direction is accordingly issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of S.K. Yadav's case (supra) within a period of one month from today. The present petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. If the petitioners are still left with any grievance, the present order would not stand to their prejudice in any manner for claiming relief of arrears. It is made clear that the petitioners would be entitled to claim arrears from the date of filing of the this petition and they are required to approach this Court under any circumstances. September 26,2011 (RANJIT SINGH) nk JUDGE