IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 1617 of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.2.2010. Labh Singh Hooda and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a typographical error in para 2 of the writ petition, wherein petitioners no.3 and 4 have been wrongly typed as respondents. He seeks leave of the Court to make necessary corrections. Prayer allowed. Corrections carried out in the Open Court. Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Petitioners no.1 and 2 were appointed as J.E. (Electrical) on 21.1.1983 and 1.2.1983 respectively and they are presently working as Additional S.D.E., Electrical, whereas petitioners no.3 and 4 were appointed as J.E. (Electrical) on 6.5.1977 and 19.4.1979 respectively and have retired from service. On the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission the pay scales of the employees of Haryana Govt. were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and J.E.s were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- and 50% of the cadre posts in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. On account of certain anomalies CWP. No. 1617 of 2010 -2- the matter was referred to Anomaly Committee, which recommended modification of the pay scales. Accordingly, the J.E.s were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and 50% of the cadre strength in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1992. The petitioners are also claiming the benefit of the revised pay scales on the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee. It is agreed to by learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by various judgements of this Court including a judgement dated 11.4.2008 passed in CWP No. 16743 of 2001, wherein following directions have been issued:- “ In view of facts, mentioned above, we allow these writ petitions and direct the respondents to grant higher pay scales to the petitioners also, as was granted to the petitioners in Jagdeep Singh's case (supra) subject to the observation made. However, benefit of arrears is restricted to a period of 38 months prior to the filing of these writ petitions.” This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Petitioners shall also be entitled to the benefits in the same manner. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 1.2.2010. lucky