HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7073 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2011 **** Yogesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Anr. . . . . 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. NS Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. TS Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. RS Kundu, Addl. AG Haryana ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as Addl. Ahlmed-cum-Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him higher pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, which has already been accepted by this Court in the case of similarly-placed Clerks in CWP No.12750 of 2009 (Sarabjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab & Anr.) as well as in CWP No.22878 of 2010 (Jitender Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.) decided on 13.08.2010 and 22.12.2010, respectively. CWP No.7073 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). The claim of the petitioner is apparently covered by the above-stated decisions. (3). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decisions in Sarabjit Singh’s and Jitender Kumar’s cases (supra) by passing appropriate order(s) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4). Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit, the consequential benefits shall also be released in his favour, within the same time-frame. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 11.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge