IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civl Writ Petition No.16917 of 2011

Date of Decision : September 09, 2011.

Narinder Singh and others

.....Petitioners

versus

The State of Punjab and another

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

Present : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

-.-

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?

---

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion.

Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned

State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be

automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been

dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is

no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioners who are working as Punjabi Masters/

Mistresses in the Education Department, Government of Punjab, seek a

mandamus for fixation of their pay after granting them seniority w.e.f.

3.1.1997 in terms of the Division Bench decision of this Court dated

CWP No.16917 of 2011

[2]

9.7.2004 passed in CWP No.19832 of 2003 (Charan Dass Sharma versus

State of Punjab and others).

The aforementioned claim has been lodged by the petitioners

vide a legal notice dated 16.4.2011 (Annexure P-6) also. The petitioners

have relied upon an order dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by this

Court in COCP No.1232 of 2007 (Randhawa Singh and others versus

Jagtar Singh Khatra). They have also relied upon a Division Bench

decision of this Court dated 9.7.2004 passed in CWP No.19832 of 2003

(Charan Dass Sharma versus State of Punjab and others) which has already

attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I deem it

appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the

respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners' claim as contained

in the aforementioned legal notice dated 16.4.2011, in the light of the

Division Bench decision of this Court in Charan Dass Sharma's case

(supra) and the observations made by this Court in Randhawa Singh's case

(supra), by passing a speaking order. In case the petitioners' claim is found

covered under the aforesaid decisions, the consequential benefits shall be

given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is

distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within

a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this

order.

Dasti.

September 09, 2011

(SURYA KANT)

Mohinder

JUDGE