CWP 14028 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 04, 2009 1. CWP No. 14028 of 2008 Shakuntala Devi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents 2. CWP No. 14432 of 2008 Kamlesh Devi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No. 14028 of 2008 and 14432 of 2008 as there are common questions of law and facts involved . In both the petitions the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 22.4.2008 and 1.1.2008 respectively whereby the higher scale of JST granted to them on their acquiring higher qualification was ordered to be withdrawn and recovery effected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the CWP 14028 of 2008 2 petitioners had earlier filed CWP No.17580 of 1997 and CWP No. 6500 of 1998 respectively which were allowed by this Court. These judgments attained finality and the necessary relief was granted to the petitioners. It is not disputed that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners viz. CWP No.17580 of 1997 and CWP No.6500 of 1998 were never appealed against. In CWP No. 6599 of 2009 titled as Shakuntala Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others decided on 4.3.2008 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “ Therefore, keeping in view the principle of law that rights inter parties which have been conclusively determined by judicial orders cannot be reagitated on the basis of subsequent declaration of law in some other subject judgment as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Telephone's case (supra), Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's case (supra) and Karnal Coop. Farmer's Society's case (supra), the orders and notices impugned in these connected 28 writ petitions are not sustainable and hence set aside. Consequently in view of the binding precedent in Shakuntala Devi's case (supra) these petitions are allowed and the orders dated 1.1.2008 and 22.4.2008 are set aside. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 04, 2009 sunita