CWP No.16856 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16856 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Tehal Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab through Secy. Ministry of Agriculture . . . . Respondent **** CWP No.16865 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Bikker Singh Buttar and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab through Secy. Ministry of Agriculture . . . . Respondent **** CWP No.16908 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Gurmej Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab through Secy. Ministry of Agriculture . . . . Respondent **** 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. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab CWP No.16856 of 2009.doc - 2 – ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.16856, 16865 & 16908 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.16856 of 2009. (2). The petitioners are members of the Punjab Agricultural Service (Class-I) and are working as such on various posts in the Agriculture and Horticulture Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with consequential revisions from later dates, in terms of the decision dated September 29, 2006 passed by this Court in CWP No.457 of 1995 titled as Prem Singh Gill and others vs. State of Punjab (Annexure P3). (3). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit, wherein, it is averred that since the petitioners were not party to the above-mentioned writ petition, the benefit has not been granted to them. However, their claims are under consideration. CWP No.16856 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). The respondents have broadly not disputed the entitlement of the petitioners for the afore-stated pay- scale though with a caveat that the petitioners kept on sleeping over their rights. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the above-mentioned stand taken on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider their claim for grant of above-mentioned higher pay-scale(s) with effect from the due date(s) in terms of the decision of this Court in Prem Singh Gill’s case (supra) and pass the appropriate order(s) as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The necessary consequential service benefits shall also be granted to the petitioners in terms of Prem Singh Gill’s case (supra). (6). Ordered accordingly (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar