IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 DALBIR SINGH BAWA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioners, 59 in number, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners while implementing the recommendations of Kothari Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have been working as Masters/Mistresses since prior to the year 1975 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1989 2 various schools in the State of Punjab. Kothari Commission was appointed to recommend pay structure, method of recruitment, training, qualification and other allied matters, for improvement of education in the country. A report was submitted by the Commission making recommendations on various aspects, including pay structure. The recommendations were accepted by the respondents to the effect that the Government shall revise the pay scales of all categories of teachers after 5 years. The Punjab Government, accepting the recommendations of Kothari Commission, ordered its implementation with effect from 1.11.1966. The respondent-State, dehors the rights of the petitioners, implemented the recommendations of Kothari Commission in the case of classical and vernacular teachers alone and revised their pay scales after 5 years i.e. with effect from 1.11.1971. The petitioners were not given any relief, at par with the classical and vernacular teachers. Aggrieved by this anomaly, a number of representations were filed. On denial of relief, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised in this petition is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 2208 of 1989 (Lekh Raj Khera and others v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 24.3.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to either dispute the facts or distinguish the judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above and particularly because the issue Civil Writ Petition No. 13558 of 1989 3 involved in the petition is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Lekh Raj Khera's case (supra), this petition is allowed in the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs. September 1, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?