Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These three appeals arise out of orders dated 23rd September, 2005, 21st April, 2006 and 23rd February, 2007, relating to Civil Writ Petition No.16811 of 2003 and Review Petitions filed therein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3. Theappellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia, for the following relief:-

."(iv) Quashing the order no. 202 dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure Indian Penal Code-3) passed by the respondent No.3 withdrawing the benefits of pay fixation already granted to petitioners Satinder Singh and directing the respondent to step-up the pay of the petitioners to that of their junior Sh. Ram Prakash Shori and the petitioners may be granted all arrears of Pay, retiral benefits and other consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum."

.4. Inthe written statement/counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, Punjab State Electricity Board, and its officers, it was stated in Paragraph 7 that the relief claimed by the petitioner had already been granted. When the writ petition came up for final hearing the High Court on 23rd September, 2005, disposed of the same by passing the following order :-

."In view of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Disposed of as such."

.5. Subsequently, a review petition came to be filed by the writ petitioners before the High Court claiming that the statement made in paragraph 7 of the written statement, concerned only the writ petitioner No.2, and without considering the case of the respondent No.1 on a separate footing he too was denied relief, although he was not covered by such statement. When the Review Petition came up for hearing on 21st April, 2006, learned counsel for the petitioners was not present and on the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that no relief had been claimed in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No.1, the High Court dismissed the review petition by passing the following order:-

."Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the relief claimed in the review petition is not claimed in the main petition for petitioner No.1. Therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. Dismissed."

6. Ondismissal of the review petition in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners, a miscellaneous application was filed for modification of the order passed in the review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 23rd February, 2007.

7. It is against the said three orders of the High Court that these appeals have been filed.

8. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Nidesh Gupta, learned senior advocate, submitted that when the writ petition was filed on behalf of both the appellants, it was only natural that the reliefs therein had been claimed in respect of both and it could not be confined to the appellant No.2 alone, as was done in the instant case, merely on account of the statement made in the written statement of the respondents that the grievance of the appellant No.2 had already been addressed. Mr. Gupta submitted that the appellants were similarly situated and it was their common ground that they were receiving lesser salary than their junior. Mr. Gupta submitted that Paragraph 7 of the writ petition was absolutely clear that it was the common case of the appellants that since they were receiving lesser pay than their junior, Shri Ram Prakash Shori, who was receiving a higher salary, their salaries were also required to be stepped up to that of Shri Shori. Mr. Gupta also urged that the position would be further clarified from the question of law formulated in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition. It was urged that it was, therefore, wrong to say that no case had been made out on behalf of the appellant No.1 and hence no relief could be granted in his favour.

.9. Referring to prayer (iv) in the writ petition, Mr. Gupta urged that specific reference had been made to th