HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9189 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.01.2011 **** Gurdeep Singh & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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. RK Arora, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner(s) Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 17957 of 2000; 9189, 10052 & 15301 of 2003 as the issues involved for adjudication are common in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.9189 of 2003. (2). The petitioners are working as Clerks/Mali-cum- Chowkidars in the Nagar Panchayat, Sanewal – respondent No.4. They were appointed on consolidated pay pursuant to their selection made in terms of the advertisement dated 24.3.1999 (Annexure P1). (3). The Nagar Panchayat, Sahnewal passed a resolution to grant regular pay scale(s) to the petitioners and sought CWP No.9189 of 2003.doc - 2 – approval of the State Government. However, the Director, Local Government – respondent No.2 restrained the Regional Deputy Director, Local Government, Ludhiana from giving effect to the resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat, Sanewal, which action of the State Government has prompted the petitioners to approach this Court. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the question as to whether or not the State Government is competent to set at naught the resolution passed by Municipal/Nagar Council. has been recently answered against the State Government by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2010 passed in CWP No.13005 of 2001 (Sukhminder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.) which fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents also. (5). The writ petition(s) is/are accordingly allowed in terms of Sukhminder Singh’s case (supra) and the State Government is held to have no authority to restrain the Nagar Council, Sanewal from implementing its Resolution. (6). The Nagar Council, Sahnewal shall also be at liberty to grant suitable pay scales to the petitioner(s) and to re- CWP No.9189 of 2003.doc - 3 – consider the claim for the regularization of their services, if so permissible under the Rules/Policy. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge