CWP No.3532 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3532 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Gurjit Pal and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. (2). The petitioners are working as Science Master/Hindi Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow them to exercise fresh option for the grant of revised pay- scales w.e.f. 01.01.1988 (instead of 01.01.1986) under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 (in short, ‘the Rules’). The above-stated relief has been sought by the petitioners on the strength CWP No.3532 of 2010.doc - 2 – of the decision dated 21.11.1995 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.18380 of 1994 (Nand Lal Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others) (Annexure P1). The above- stated writ petition was allowed in the following terms:- “In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to revise their option under the Rules of 1988. If for this purpose, it becomes necessary the Government should pass order under Rule 12 for relaxation of relevant rule regarding exercise of option and its finality. Necessary order should be passed by the competent authority within three months of the submission of the certified copy of this order. Keeping in view the fact that there may be many other similarly situated persons, we deem it proper to direct the respondents in general and respondent No.2 in particular to give similar opportunity to exercise revised option to other persons so that they may not be compelled to approach this Court and thereby unnecessarily and to ever increasing number of cases. Such a course would also be in a public interest and would save public exchequer from the expenses etc. which are required to incur for defending the cases in the Court. (3). The petitioners’ grievance is that despite the above- reproduced general directions issued by this Court, no opportunity has been granted to them to exercise fresh option for release of the revised pay scales under the Rules. It is further averred that the petitioners made several representations, CWP No.3532 of 2010.doc - 3 – followed by legal notice dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure P5) but in vain as no response has been received. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to take cognizance of the above-mentioned legal notice dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure P5) and consider the claim of the petitioners regarding change of option for grant of the revised pay scales in terms of the Division Bench judgement rendered in Nand Lal Sharma’s case (supra). The claim of the petitioners shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in case they are found entitled to, the petitioners shall be granted one month’s time to exercise the fresh options. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar