CWP No. 14768 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14768 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 19, 2010 Gobinder Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefits of pay revision to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.11.1971 instead of 16.07.1975 amongst other benefits. 2. Essentially, it has been pleaded that the issue has already been considered by this Court while dealing with CWP No. 2208 of 1989 entitled Lekh Raj Khera and others Vs. State of Punjab and another. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners being similarly situated, are entitled to the same benefits. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. CWP No. 14768 of 2010 2 5. Requisite number of copies of the petition have been handed over to learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the parties pray that the matter be disposed of at this stage itself, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that indeed the issue raised in the petition is covered by judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), however, the State might prefer LPA/SLP against the judgment rendered in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further contends that the matter be disposed of in terms of judgment rendered in CWP No. 15898 of 2009 decided on 03.02.2010 entitled Avinash Kumar Bansal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others. 9. I have considered the issue. 10. The following needs to be extracted from Avinash Kumar Bansal's case (supra), for consideration of the issue raised in this petition:- “(6). 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 benefits as have been granted in the above-mentioned judgment. This shall, how- ever, be without prejudice to the right of the State of Pun- jab to challenge the above-mentioned Single-Bench deci- sion before the Appellate Bench and/or the Hon'ble Su- preme Court and the final decision(s) shall be equally bind- ing upon the petitioners, even if no separate LPA/SLPs is filed in their case(s). CWP No. 14768 of 2010 3 (7). The needful shall be done with a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. In view of the conceded position, this petition is decided in terms of order of this Court passed in CWP No. 15898 of 2009 decided on 03.02.2010 entitled Avinash Kumar Bansal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, portion whereof has been extracted above. 19.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?