IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3782 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4.3.2010. Hira Lal and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioners were appointed on the post of Helper in Group- D. Later they were promoted to the posts of Electrician, Mechanic, Blacksmith, Painter, Tyremen etc. in Group-C on the dates specified in para 2 of the writ petition. The State of Haryana formulated rules for grant of A.C.P benefit to remove the stagnation of Group-C & D categories. The petitioners were, accordingly, granted 1st A.C.P benefit w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-7850 up till July, 1999. Thereafter, their salary was re-fixed by bringing them in the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000/-. The said order was challenged before this Court. The order was set aside and liberty was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. CWP. No. 3782 of 2010 -2- In sum and substance the grievance of the petitioners is that some persons junior to them are getting higher pay scales than the petitioners. Petitioners have also served a legal notice (Annexure P-8) but no decision has been taken thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioners. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to take decision on the legal notice served by the petitioners within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.3.2010. lucky