IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1375 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: December 18, 2008 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & another ... Appellants Versus Nikka Ram ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vivek Lamba, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for granting him parity of pay with his juniors. Learned counsel for the appellants was not in a position to deny that similar RSA No.3319 of 2005 decided on 28.02.2006 and RSA No.2033 of 2005 decided on 04.03.2006 were dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel further argued that the respondent has been given benefit of pay protection and this could not be given beyond 38 months of the filing of the suit. In response to this argument, learned senior counsel for the appellant has pointed out that by order dated 14.03.1991 (Ex. P-6) the pay of the junior was enhanced w.e.f. 09.08.1979 RSA No.1375 of 2008(O&M) -2- and that suit was subsequently filed within the period of limitation and therefore, there can be no fault of respondent in granting him the same basic pay as granted to his immediate juniors. I find that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Haryana State Argicultural Marketing Board & another vs. Tajo Devi & others decided on 28.02.2006. As regards the question of limiting arrears to 38 months, I am fully satisfied with the explanation given by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. Consequently, I hold that no question of law arise in this appeal and dismiss the same. No costs. December 18, 2008 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE