LPA No.373 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.373 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 State of Punjab & others. ....Appellants Versus Mangat Ram and others. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the respondents. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge directing restoration of pay scales by setting aside order of withdrawal of the same. 2. The respondents were employed with the State of Punjab in capacity of Electrician/Fitter Coolie. On the basis of their ITI certificate of two years, they were given higher pay scales of qualified technician category. Thereafter, vide notice dated 13.5.1994 (Annexure P-9), the pay scales were sought to be withdrawn, which was challenged by the writ petitioners. 3. The learned Single Judge held that withdrawal of the pay scale was not justified, once after taking a conscious decision pay scale was given. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 4. At the time of admission, No stay was granted. It is not disputed that the pay scales have been restored. LPA No.373 of 1998 2 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. 6. Learned Single Judge observed:- “It will be evident from Annexure P-7 that the State government had accepted the recommendation made by the Department that the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.140-300 was to be given to the petitioners and consequently the said benefit had been conferred on the petitioners vide Annexure P-8 dated 17.9.1990 issued by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Public Health Circle, Patiala. To my mind, therefore, issuance of a show cause notice Annexure P-9 by the superintending Engineer, mechanical public health, Patiala as the subsequent order Annexure P-16, withdrawing the benefit of the pay scales of Rs.140-300 made by the aforesaid officer under the authority of the Chief Engineer, Punjab was not justified and legally sustainable.” 7. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to advance any argument to challenge the above finding. 8. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) 21.01.2010 Judge sk.