CWP No. 11463 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 11463 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.09.2011 Smt. Usha Kohli ...... Petitioner Versus HUDA and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. K L Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Siddarath Batra, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant of stepping up of pay and accordingly pay fixation of the petitioner to bring her at par with reserved category junior employee with all consequential benefits. The issue involved is settled by this Court in the case of Charan Dass v. State of Haryana, decided on 18.11.2008 in CWP No. 5956 of 2008. Thereafter, similarly situated person, namely, Harvinder Kaur of the same department on the same set of grounds filed writ petition bearing No. 11272 of 2008 which was allowed vide order dated 19.08.2010. The CWP No. 11463 of 2011 2 operative part of the order reads as under:- “In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner at par with respondent No. 3 with effect from the date the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant. Let the arrears be determined and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order served upon the competent authority.” Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to file reply. After perusing the judgement rendered by this Court in the cases of Charan Dass and Harvinder Kaur (supra), this Court is satisfied that the matter is squarely covered by the said judgement. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the same terms as Harvinder Kaur v. HUDA and others, decided on 19.08.2010 in CWP No. 11272 of 2008. In case, this case is not found covered by the said judgement, learned counsel for the respondents shall have the right to revive the writ petition. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.09.2011 mohan