IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.17461 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 19, 2011. Lekh Raj and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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. The petitioners who are working as Lecturer/Mathematics Masters/Mistresses in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, CWP No.17461 of 2011 [2] seek a mandamus for fixation of their pay after granting them seniority w.e.f. 14.11.1996 and 3.12.1997 and also grant the consequential benefits. The aforementioned claim has been lodged by the petitioners vide a legal notice dated 23.6.2010 (Annexure P-8) also. The petitioners have relied upon an order dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by this Court in COCP No.1232 of 2007 (Randhawa Singh and others versus Jagtar Singh Khatra). They have also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 9.7.2004 passed in CWP No.19832 of 2003 (Charan Dass Sharma versus State of Punjab and others) which has already attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners' claim as contained in the aforementioned legal notice dated 23.6.2010, in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Charan Dass Sharma's case (supra) and the observations made by this Court in Randhawa Singh's case (supra), by passing a speaking order. In case the petitioners' claim is found covered under the aforesaid decisions, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners 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. Dasti. September 19, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE