IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1688 of 1988 Date of decision: 2nd December, 2008 Bakshi Ram Bajaj and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Addl. AG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition was preferred by 26 employees of Dayanand College, Hisar. They were working as college lecturers, drawing UPC scale in the year 1972, when University Grants Commission recommended new pay scales admissible to them. In year 1974, Government of Haryana granted additional installments of Dearness Allowance to all Government employees of Class-I and Class-II serving in the State of Haryana. Grievance of the petitioners is that on the basis of their old pay scales from 01.01.1973, when the new pay scale, in terms of University Grants Commission’s recommendations, were adopted by the State of Haryana, then vide letter dated 6th September, 1974 a cut of Rs.45/- per month was imposed. It was stated that this was totally unjustified and unauthorized. Written statement was filed, in which it was stated that the writ petition has been filed in year 1988 after a delay of 13 years. It was stated in the reply that no cut of Rs.45/- per month was made in case of the Civil Writ Petition No. 1688 of 1988 petitioners, as alleged. It was stated that revised scale of pay was not inclusive of the additional Dearness Allowance, which became payable to the petitioners w.e.f. 1st May, 1973 and onwards. Therefore, it has been submitted by Mr.Chandail that on implementation of new pay scales, additional Dearness Allowance was to merge in the scale. Therefore, varying from Rs.20.75 to Rs.45.00, adjustment was made of excess Dearness Allowance and it was made clear that the same would cease to operate when the petitioners reach at the total emoluments of Rs.1410/- or above. I find merit in the contention of Mr.Chandail. Since the employees were working in the year 1974, according to Mr.Chandail, all of them, by now may have retired and their whereabouts are not known. The counsel representing them Mr.Prem Singh Duhan has expired. This Court had made various efforts to serve the petitioners, but the notices have not been received back, served or otherwise. Present writ petition is disposed off with an observation that in case, by now any grievance of the petitioners subsist, even after filing of the reply by the State and issuance of circular (Ex.R-3), petitioners may renew the present writ petition by filing an application. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 2, 2008 rps 2