IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4078 of 1991. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2009. Jai Pal & Ors. ....Petitioners through None Versus Secretary to Government of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 4078 and 14592 of 1991 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. The petitioners seek a direction for protection of their pay after they have been absorbed in the services of respondent No. 2 – Institute. Suffice it to note that the petitioners were earlier working with different State owned Corporations like Haryana Agro Industries Corporation and were declared surplus in those organizations. The petitioners have been later on absorbed in the respondent Institute in terms of the Government policy. They seek protection of their previous pay on the analogy that similar protection has been granted in other Government Departments. In CWP No. 14592 of 1991, the petitioner has been absorbed in the Haryana Housing Board. Learned State Counsel has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 16.10.1991 containing necessary instructions issued to all the Government Departments/ Organizations to protect the pay of the employees who were earlier working in different Government organizations and on being declared surplus were absorbed in the Government Departments. He has also placed on record copies of the orders dated 30.12.1991 and 24.8.1993 whereby pay of some of the petitioners has already been protected. It appears that on getting their previous pay protected, the petitioners have lost interest in these cases as no one appears on their behalf. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to get the same revived within a period of six months if their grievance has yet not been fully redressed. April 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE