IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13499 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 02, 2010 Diwan Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant benefit of judgment dated 24.3.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.2208 of 1989, `Lekh Raj Khera & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another’ and refix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.1971. 2. Learned counsel contends that the judgment in Lekh Raj Khera’s case (supra) has been followed in later judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.7916 of 2010 titled `Surjit Singh & Others vs. State of CWP No.13499 of 2010 [2] Punjab & Another’, decided on 3.5.2010 and this case can be disposed of accordingly. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents in Court. 5. On request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up at this stage itself for final adjudication in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that indeed the issue would be covered by judgment rendered in Surjit Singh’s case (supra). 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Following needs to be extracted from Surjit Singh’s case (supra):- “The afore-stated benefit is sought on the strength of a recent decision of this Court dated 24.3.2009 rendered in CWP No.2208 of 1989 (Lekh Raj Khera and others versus State of Punjab and others), the operative part of which reads as follows:- “In view of the above legal and factual position, this pe- tition succeeds partly. Respondents are directed to ex- tend the benefit of the pay revision in case of petition- ers w.e.f. 1.11.1971 instead of 16.7.1975. They are further directed to fix the pay scale of such of the peti- tioners whose unrevised pay falls between two stages in the new time scale in the revised scale in the next stage. The process of fixation of pay be completed CWP No.13499 of 2010 [3] within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. The consequential benefit be released in fa- vour of the petitioners within a period of two months thereafter.” On the other hand, Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, though does not dispute that the issue raised in this writ petition stands answered in fa- vour of the petitioners in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), decided by a Co-ordinate Bench but contends that the State might have preferred LPA/SLP against the said judgment. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that even if there is no LPA or SLPs in this case, the petitioners shall abide by the final decision that may be rendered by this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), as the case may be. In view of the above undertaking, the writ petition is allowed in part in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra). The petitioners are also held enti- tled to the consequential service benefits as have been granted in the above mentioned judgment. This shall, how- ever, be without prejudice to the right of the State of Pun- jab to challenge the above-mentioned Single Bench deci- sion before the Appellate Bench and/or the Hon'ble Su- preme Court and the final decision(s) shall be equally binding upon the petitioners, even if no separate LPA/SLPs is filed in their case(s). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” 9. In view of the admitted position that the issue is covered by judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.7916 of 2010 titled `Surjit Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another’, decided on 3.5.2010, portion whereof has been extracted above, this petition is decided in the same terms. (AJAI LAMBA) August 02, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?