Civil Writ No. 4468 of 1992 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Writ No. 4468 of 1992 Date of decision: September 26,2011 Joginder Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG,Punjab for the respondents ... Ranjit Singh,J(Oral) The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the respondents rejecting the representation filed by them on 31.8.1990 and for issuing direction to maintain the pay parity by granting benefits of the revised senior scales of pay on completion of 8 and 18 years of service as has been allowed to the three Engineering Wings of P.W.D. On 27.5.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench judgment delivered by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4216 of 2011 titled as S.K.Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 9.7.2002, but the department is reluctant to examine the said judgment and apply the same in the case of Punjab also. Learned counsel has further stated that the Engineering Civil Writ No. 4468 of 1992 2 Wing in the Agriculture Department was observed to be equal to the Engineering Wing of P.W.D. but they are deprived of the same relief which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Yadav's case (supra), in the case of Haryana. Under the circumstances, Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh is directed to decide the matter by passing speaking order. If the judgment passed in S.K.Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable to the case of Punjab, then he would appear in this Court with an affidavit explaining as to why the judgment passed in S. K. Yadav's case (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner (Development), Punjab has passed an order, granted the relief claimed in the petition but had not allowed any arrears due to pay fixation. The writ petition is accordingly rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, the petitioners,if so advised, can separately raise a challenge to the denial of arrears to them. September 26,2011 (RANJIT SINGH) nk JUDGE