IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10927 of 1989 Date of Decision: March 31, 2009 Kulwant Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioners with effect from 1.1.1978 by stepping up their pay equivalent to the persons who entered into service with Post-Graduate qualifications or acquired Post Graduate qualifications after 1.1.1978. The precise grievance made in the petition is that Masters and Mistresses who joined service with Post Graduate qualifications or acquired these qualifications later to the petitioners are drawing more pay than what is being paid to the petitioners who joined service with Post Graduate qualifications or acquired these qualifications earlier, as the case may be. CWP No. 10927 of 1989 It is conceded position that the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra as the same has already been decided in favour of the petitioners by this Court in the case of Rawail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1995 (4) S.C.T. 481, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed various writ petitions including CWP No. 6791 of 1989, directing the respondents that the pay of the petitioners be stepped up equal to the one being drawn by other Masters and Mistresses immediate junior to them irrespective of the fact that they joined service with post graduate qualifications before 1.1.1978, or acquired post graduate qualifications before that date. They were also held entitled to arrears of pay for a period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. On 30.5.1990, when the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench, while admitting the petition the same was ordered to be heard alongwith C.W.P. No. 6721 of 1989. The said writ petition has already been decided in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Rawail Singh (supra). Learned State counsel also could not successfully controvert the aforementioned position. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusing the paper book with their able assistance, I have no hesitation to hold that the issue raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rawail Singh (supra). Accordingly, following the same principle and precedent the instant petition is allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Rawail Singh (supra). 2 CWP No. 10927 of 1989 (M.M. KUMAR) March 31, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3