HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19701 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 **** Darshan 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. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.19701, 19718, 19761, 19717 & 19691 of 2010; 2955, 6942, 7305, 7312, 7716 & 10268 of 2011 as the issues raised in these petition(s) pertain to the finalization of seniority in the cadre of Masters/Mistresses in the Education Department, Government of Punjab. (2). During the course of hearing, it is not disputed that a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2011 passed in CWP No.7925 of 2011 (Kuldeep Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) has already issued necessary directions to the State of Punjab, the operative part whereof reads as follows:- CWP No.19701 of 2010.doc - 2 – “Apart from that, learned counsel for the State of Punjab has made a statement in similar matter, being CWP No.8246 of 2009 that the Government has decided to grant seniority to the appointees on the basis of merit in the selection list. He, however, submitted that it will take some time. In view of the statements made above, respondents are directed to complete the process of finalization of seniority on the basis of merit in accordance with Rule 11 of the Act within a period of four months. It is also relevant to notice that the petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefit on the basis of the deemed seniority without any monetary benefits, however, salary shall be fixed giving benefit of pay revision, if any, during interregnum.” (3). The writ petition(s) is/are therefore disposed of in terms of the above-reproduced order with a further direction to the respondents that the needful shall be done within the time-frame as stipulated in Kuldeep Singh’s case (supra). (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 30.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge