IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 4074 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.3.2010. Suraj Mal and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. Some of the petitioners have retired, whereas some are still in service. The petitioners were initially engaged on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 31.10.1974 and thereafter appointed on regular post w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Under the Govt. instructions they were entitled to additional increment on completion of 8/18 years of service. On that basis they were given the benefit of additional increments on completion of 8/18 years of service. The said benefit has now been withdrawn vide impugned order dated 25.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) which has been followed by re-fixation of their salary vide order dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure P-7). Both these orders are under challenge in the present petition. The petitioners have also served a legal notice (Annexure P-9). They have placed reliance upon a Division CWP. No. 4074 of 2010 -2- Bench judgement of this Court passed in CWP No. 7862 of 2006 on 4.7.2008. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the service of legal notice the same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid judgement. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid judgement, within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 9.3.2010. lucky