IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1435 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th August 2010. Harvinder Singh & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Naresh Prabhakar and Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocates Versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate Ms. Simanjeet Kaur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek a Mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 13542 of 1993 decided on 27.9.2001 [Raj Pal Verma & Anr. V Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana & Ors. {Annexure P-1]} passed by this Court in qua them also and grant the arrears of pay by treating them at par with Accountants as was directed vide the above cited judgment. The petitioners also seek quashing of the reply to the Legal Notice-cum-the order dated 29.12.2009 [Annexure P-7] whereby the afore-stated benefit earlier granted to them has been withdrawn and recovery is sought to be effected. The petitioners are working as Senior Scale Stenographers/Personal Assistants in the respondent University. They claim the pay scale at par with Accountants in terms of the Circular dated 11.11.204 and 26.2.2004 [Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively]. It is not in dispute that an identical issue was raised by three employees of the respondent-University before this Court in CWP No. 13542 of 1993 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 27.9.2001 [Annexure P-1] in the following terms:- “In view of foregoing discussion, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of pay due to them by treating them at par with the Accountants so far as the pay scales are concerned. The respondents are directed to compute the relief due to the petitioners and make the payment expeditiously. Necessary exercise be completed within six months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Counsel for the petitioners points out that a direction may also be issued to the petitioner asking them for their options under the revised pay scale. According to me, no such direction need be issued. If such is the requirement of the rules, University would be expected to keep that in view while computing the relief due to the petitioners”. The University preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 537 of 2002 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.05.2002 [Annexure P-2]. Similarly, the Special Leave Petition 12365 of 2002 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.7.2002. It is also not in dispute that the University took a conscious decision to implement the afore-stated judgment qua all the similarly situated employees like the petitioners and granted them the benefit in question. However, the State Government, in the Department of Local Fund Examiner, Punjab raised an objection against the uniform implementation of the said decision and succumbing to their objections that the impugned orders have been passed whereby the benefit earlier granted to the petitioners has been withdrawn and recovery is sought to be effected. The University has filed its reply/affidavit admitting the petitioners' claim but explaining that the benefit earlier granted to the petitioners had to be withdrawn due to the audit objections raised by respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 8 has also filed its reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioners are not entitled to the afore-stated pay scale. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the stand taken by respondent No. 8 is motivated to get the controversy re-opened even though it has already been settled up to the Apex Court. Undoubtedly, respondent No. 8 is still adamant to draw the so-called distinction between the Senior Scale Stenographers/Personal Assistants on the one hand and the Accounts on the other. Such a plea can not be allowed to be raised repeatedly for the obvious reason that this Court has already accepted the pay parity between the two posts vide judgment [Annexure P-1]. For the detailed reasons assigned in Raj Pal Verma's case [supra], this writ petition is allowed in the same terms and consequently, the petitioners are held entitled to the same benefits as have been granted by this Court in Raj Pal Verma's case [supra]. As a necessary corollary thereto, the impugned reply-cum- order dated 29.12.2009 [Annexure P-7] is hereby quashed and recovery, if already effected from the petitioners, is ordered to be refunded to them within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. August 10, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE