IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5104 of 2009 Sat Pal and another ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sudhir Arora, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The only justification given in the reply to deny the pay at par to the petitioners with junior is that he has got this pay in terms of order passed by this Court. This order in the favour of the said junior was upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Primarily, this would not be a valid ground to deny pay at par with junior if the petitioners are senior. Mr. Rathee, however, points out that the said junior was getting pay as he is appointed on a technical post whereas the petitioners are holding the post of Storekeeper, which is not a technical post. As per the record, the petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 are initially shown as Storemen and are placed in the same seniority list which clearly shows that the petitioners are senior to respondent No. 4. However, justification to deny the technical pay to the petitioners is that respondent No. 4 is holding diploma of ITI whereas the same is not the case in respect of the petitioners. Let the petitioners make a representation in this regard to the respondents on the basis of issue settled by the Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5104 of 2009 -2- favour of respondent No. 4. They would be at liberty to raise all the grounds on which they would seek equation of their pay at par with respondent No. 4. The same would be considered and decided in accordance with law. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. The present writ petition is disposed of. September 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE