IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6722 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 09, 2010. Sudesh Kumar (Retd.) and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.C.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, 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.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner are retired Lecturers (School Cadre)/Head Masters/Masters/Mistresses from the Education Department, Government of Punjab. She seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them the benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.11.1971 instead of 16.7.1975 and C.W.P.No .6722 of 2010 2 accordingly fix their pay as well as the post-retiral service benefits. 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 petition succeeds partly. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay revision in case of petitioners w.e.f. 1.11.1971 instead of 16.7.1975. They are further directed to fix the pay scale of such of the petitioners 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 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 favour 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 favour 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. C.W.P.No .6722 of 2010 3 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 entitled to the consequential service benefits as have been granted in the above mentioned judgment. This shall, however, be without prejudice to the right of the State of Punjab to challenge the above-mentioned Single Bench decision before the Appellate Bench and/or the Hon'ble Supreme 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. Dasti. April 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE