IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 19048 of 2003 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 25, 2009 KALYAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. MS Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition shall dispose of two petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 19048 of 2003 (Kalyan Singh v. State of Punjab and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 6641 of 2007 (Balvir Singh v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and fact are involved. For facts, reference is being made to the record of Civil Writ Petition No.19048 of 2003. Civil Writ Petition No. 19048 of 2003 2 This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Driver and allow him the pay scale sanctioned for that post, on the principle of 'Euqal Pay for Equal Work', with effect from the date the petitioner has been assigned the duties of driver i.e. 29.7.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was working as Peon, a Class-IV post, in the office of District Education Officer (EE), Faridkot. The petitioner possessed a valid Driving Licence. Respondent No.4 and other authorities at the district level asked the petitioner to perform the duties of driver. Vide order dated 29.7.1999 (Annexure P-3), respondent No.4 authorised the petitioner to drive the official Gypsy. Vide letter dated 5.10.1999 (Annexure P-9), recommendation was sent for considering the good driving skills of the petitioner and for considering promotion of the petitioner as Driver against vacancies already available for the last 9 years. Similar is the effect of letter dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure P-10). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a similar issue was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in CWP 7323 of 1999 (Hardarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others), which was allowed vide order dated 6.8.2002 (Annexure P-15). It has further been pointed out that a Special Leave Petition was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.2.2003 (Annexure P- 16). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to Civil Writ Petition No. 19048 of 2003 3 dispute the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, both the petitions are allowed in terms of judgment rendered in CWP 7323 of 1999 (Hardarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 6.8.2002. August 25, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?