IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.18101 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 26, 2011. Hardeep Singh and others .....Petitioners versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, 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.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let seven copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. CWP No.18101 of 2011 [2] The petitioners seek a mandamus to grant them the minimum of the pay scale in view of the decision rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.116 of 2009 (Rajinder Kumar and others versus State of Punjab and others decided on 9.7.2009 (Annexure P-1) which has been upheld in LPA No.1024 of 2009 (State of Punjab and others versus Rajinder Kumar and others) decided on 30.8.2010 (Annexure P-2). Suffice it to say that the matter has now been referred to a Larger Bench due to the conflicting views taken by two Division Benches. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the afore-stated decision of this Court in Rajinder Kumar's case (supra) and the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners' claim in the light of Rajinder Kumar's case (supra), by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. In case the authorities find the petitioners entitled to any relief, the release thereof shall be kept in abeyance as due to conflict of decisions, the matter has been referred to and is pending before the Larger Bench. It is accordingly directed that the decision to be taken by the Larger Bench shall be binding upon the parties in the present case also even if no further appeal is filed. Dasti. September 26, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE