CWP No.3434 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 25.02.2010 Satpal Singh Pannu and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RK Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl .AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the paper-book have been supplied to him. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer between 1977 to 1982 on the dates specified in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The pay scales of the employees of the Haryana State were revised with effect from 1.1.1986. The pay scales of the Junior Engineers also came to be revised from Rs.700-1250/- to Rs.1640-2900/-. Certain anomalies were projected and consequently the State Government constituted a High Power Committee to look into the question of anomalies. On the recommendation of the Committee, the pay scales CWP No.3434 of 2010 2 of the Junior Engineers were revised and they were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and further on rendering of 20 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/-. It is alleged that the petitioners have been granted the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1992 instead 1.1.1986 on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for removal of anomalies. The petitioners have filed this petition claiming the same benefit. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of M.L. Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.16743 of 2001 and other connected cases, decided on 11.04.2008, wherein the following directions have been made:- “In view of facts, mentioned above, we allow these writ petitions and direct the respondents to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners also, as was granted to the petitioners in Jagdeep Singh's case (supra) subject to the observations made. However, benefit of arrears is restricted to a period of 38 months prior to the filing of these writ petitions.” The present writ petition is squarely covered by the observations made in the aforesaid case. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the claim of the petitioners be considered in terms CWP No.3434 of 2010 3 of the judgment aforesaid and the benefit be given to them accordingly. However, the arrears shall be restricted to 38 months preceding to the filing of the writ petition. No costs. 25.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE