CWP NO. 8841 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8841 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 23, 2009 Smt. Vinod Kumari and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The dispute in this case relates to the entitlement of higher grade on completion of 10-20 years service which has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that they were disentitled to the same on account of their promotion. It is not denied that directly recruited persons who were junior to the petitioners as Masters were granted these scales. The petitioners had filed representations giving details of the persons junior to them who were granted this benefit. On 26.5.2008 the following order was passed:- “In this writ petition, the petitioners claim that their pay CWP NO. 8841 of 2006 2 be stepped up at par with their juniors, whose names are given in paragraph 1 of the replication filed by them. Shri Rathee seeks time to get instructions as to whether the persons named in the replication, are junior to the petitioners or not. On request, adjourned to 9.9.2008.” Thereafter the matter has been listed on 9.9.2008, 26.11.2008, 28.1.2009 and 19.2.2009. Event today learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to deny the fact that persons junior to the petitioners have been given the pay scale. A period of about one year has elapsed and no denial of the this averment has been made by the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in CWP No. 3258 of 2006 (Annexure P-6) and the persons mentioned in the replication are the petitioners of that writ petition. Consequently this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as aforesaid CWP No. 3258of 2006. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 23, 2009 sunita