CWP No.10342 of 1993.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10342 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2010 **** Makhan Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. JPS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are working as Sanitary Inspector/Senior Sanitary Inspector/Malaria Inspectors/Senior Malaria Inspectors in the Health Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them pay parity and place them in the pay-scale of Rs.570- 1080 w.e.f. 01.01.1978 followed by further revisions from time to time so as to bring them at par with the Sanitary Inspectors working with the Municipalities in the State of Punjab. (2). Similar controversy came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar CWP No.10342 of 1993.doc - 2 – Mariay and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(3) RSJ 593, wherein it was directed that the Sanitary Inspectors like the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1978 as was granted to the Sanitary Inspector(s) in the Municipalities. (3). Learned State counsel, however, points out that appeal has already been preferred against the above- mentioned judgement of the learned Single Judge. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Mariya’s case (supra) and is ordered accordingly. (5). However, the implementation of the order in this case shall depend upon the ad interim stay or final order, if any, in Shiv Kumar Mariya’s case (supra). Suffice it to say that if any ad interim stay is granted in Shiv Kumar Mariya’s case (supra), the order in the present case need not be implemented till the final decision in that appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that they have no objection and they shall abide by the final decision in Shiv Kumar Mariya’s case (supra) (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . CWP No.10342 of 1993.doc - 3 – (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.03.2010 vishal shonkar