IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16980 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 18.11.2009 Union of India and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Keshav Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The Union of India and others have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 8.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) and 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the CAT'). Vide order dated 8.12.2008, O.A. No. 729-PB-2007, filed by the respondents for directing the petitioners to revise their pay scale at par with the Painters/Decorators from the date of accrual of the anomaly after re-fixing their pay from the due date, was allowed, following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CWP No. 8309 of 2000 in the matter of Omkar Nath Kushwala and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, CWP No. 16980 of 2009 -2- Allahabad and others, decided on 8.7.2003, and the petitioners were directed to implement those directions within a period of 3 months. Vide order dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), the review application filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order has been disposed of, while modifying the earlier order to the extent that the direction issued vide order dated 8.12.2008 shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6305 of 2004. However, it has been observed that since no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, therefore, the order passed by the CAT shall be implemented with the aforesaid condition. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned orders. It is not disputed before us that the controversy involved in the present case as well as in Omkar Nath Kushwala's case (supra), decided by the Allahabad High Court, is exactly the same. It is conceded position that in the similar facts and circumstances, same relief was granted by the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid case. It is a fact that against the decision of the Allahabad High Court, Civil Appeal has been filed, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the direction given by the Allahabad High Court in favour of the employees. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court appears to have been implemented, as in spite of opportunity, no material was placed on record to the effect that the said judgment has not been implemented. CWP No. 16980 of 2009 -3- In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any illegality in giving of directions, similar to those given by the Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid case. As far as the interest of the petitioners is concerned, the same has been safeguarded by modifying the said order in the review application to the effect that the directions issued in the OA shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 18, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE