IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6604 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.4.2010. Sukhwinder Singh and another --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. The petitioners were earlier working in Octroi Branch of Municipal Committee, Ambala. In the year 1999 the octroi was abolished by the State of Haryana and the surplus staff was ordered to be absorbed in various departments of the Govt. The petitioners were adjusted in the Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department vide order dated 29.12.1999. The petitioners claim the benefit of the service rendered in Municipalities and also the pay protection. A legal notice was served by the petitioners for the purpose. Claim of the petitioners has not been settled. Another prayer in the petition is that petitioners have been denied pay protection. Even the service rendered in the Municipalities has not been taken into consideration for grant of ACP benefit. The petitioners' grievance is only in regard to pay protection. CWP. No. 6604 of 2010 -2- The issue is covered by a judgement of this Court dated 8.5.2006 passed in CWP No. 11454 of 2004, wherein following observations have been made:- “ On absorption, the respondents have not granted the benefit of pay protection. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give them the benefits of service on the basis of the letter dated 7.5.2001 issued by the State of Haryana. The respondents filed the written statement. They have admitted the issuance of circular. They accepted that the petitioners are entitled to pay protection. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Once the petitioners have been absorbed on dated 19.1.2001 and the same have been reiterated in the circular letter dated 7.5.2001, it was the duty of the respondents to implement the same. Consequently, the petitioners shall be entitled to pay protected from the date they were absorbed in the Municipal Committee. We order accordingly. The arrears of salary will be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. Petition allowed. No cost.” In view of the aforementioned directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to pass appropriate order protecting the pay of the petitioners which they were entitled to while working in the Municipalities. Consequential, order be passed within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 30.4.2010. lucky