CWP No. 1054 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1054 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.04.2010 Prem Raj Ex-HC (Medic) s/o Sh. Desh Raj and others ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS Union of India and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Central Government Counsel, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits along with interest after re-fixing the pay scale of the petitioners, which has been enforced by the respondents by lowering down the pay scale to Rs. 4000-6000 w.e.f. the date of completion of 12/24 years of service of the petitioners under the ACP Scheme which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Rule 153 (b) Rank Structure of the ITB Police Act, 1992 as no CWP No. 1054 of 2008 2 opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing the order of reduction. A prayer in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order/amendment dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure P-15) and 10.05.2005 (Annexure P-16) has also been made. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the prayers made in the present writ petition and the claim put forth by the petitioners are fully covered by a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed in LPA No. 133 of 2008 titled as Union of India and others vs. Ram Singh decided on 16.09.2009. He, on this basis, submits that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed in the same terms. On the last date of hearing i.e. 08.02.2010, counsel for the respondents had sought time to seek instructions with regard to the fact as to whether the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the above-mentioned case has been challenged by the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or not. A communication dated 09.04.2010 has been produced in the Court by the respondents, wherein it is mentioned that the said order has not been challenged by the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The result thereof is that the said judgment has attained finality and the respondents have accepted the said judgment. Counsel for the respondents, however, has tried to distinguish the judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No. 133 of 2008 titled as Union of India and others vs. Ram Singh, decided on 19.06.2009. CWP No. 1054 of 2008 3 The present writ petition is allowed in the same terms. The petitioners shall be entitled to the same relief and benefits as in the above- mentioned judgment. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 21, 2010 pj