IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.08.2011 1) CWP No. 13814 of 2010 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2) CWP No. 10278 of 2010 Rajni Bala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 3) CWP No. 14561 of 2010 Harjinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in all the cases. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of all three petitions involving the common questions of law and facts. For brevity, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 13814 of 2010. CWP No. 13814 of 2010 [2] The petitioner is working as a S.S.Master in Govt. High School, Manak Majra, District Sangrur. He had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 952 of 2009 seeking fixation of correct pay scale(s) and seniority. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2009 as having been rendered infructuous in view of the short reply filed by the respondents to the effect that necessary relief has been granted to the petitioner. The necessary relief was indeed granted to the petitioner and his pay was refixed vide order Annexure P-7. However, the said order has been withdrawn without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) after observing that the pay of the petitioner fixed prior to the passing of order (Annexure P-7) was correct. The aggrieved has again approached this Court. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that a fresh order dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure R-1) has been passed whereby the pay of the petitioner has been brought at par with his juniors and his seniority has also correctly been fixed. That being so, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner is given liberty that for any left out grievances he may represent the competent authority who shall dispose of the same in accordance with the law/rules. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) 24.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'