IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 104 of 2001 Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Biran Wanti Gupta ….Petitioner Versus Dr. Jagtar Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18380 of 1994, decided on 21.11.1995 and Civil Writ Petition No. 13604 of 1995 reported as 1996(2) SCT 257, issued the general directions to the Government to allow the petitioners and similarly situated persons to revise their option under the Rules and COCP 104 of 2001 if for this purpose, it become necessary, the Government should pass an order under Rule 12 for relaxation of relevant rules regarding exercise of option and its finality. A Division Bench of this Court again while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1997 reiterated the same general directions to the respondent authorities on 16.08.2000. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are implementing the judgments of this Court in a pick and choose manner and she has not been allowed to revise her option despite the clear cut directions of this Court and thus, the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court. In reply, respondent No.1 has submitted that the government had revised the pay scale of its employees vide notification dated 09.09.1988 and the employees have to give options under the said Rules within four months from the date of publication of the said Rules and the petitioner has exercised option under the said Rules. The Government decided to give benefit of proficiency for completing 8/18 years of service to the employees who have already exercised their option under revised pay Rule and other claiming the proficiency step-up. It is further submitted that respondents have complied with the directions of this Court by generalizing the same benefit to the non-petitioner employees vide letter dated 06.06.1996. The same letter was 2 COCP 104 of 2001 endorsed further by the other competent authorities and employees were asked to give their option within 15 days afresh so that their claim may be considered. The petitioner noted the said letter endorsed by the District Education Officer (S), Sangrur, vide dated 10.03.1996, but did not give any fresh option as required under the rules within the stipulated period. Petitioner has not filed any rebuttal to the reply of the respondents and as per the reply of the respondent, petitioner herself has not submitted her claim for change of option within the stipulated period. Thus, no contempt is made out. Present petition stands dismissed and notice served on the respondent stands discharged. July 25, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3