Sandeep Vashisht & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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 three 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. CWP No.17941 of 2011 [2] The petitioners who are retired/working Class-I Officers in the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Punjab, seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them the benefits of the pre- revised pay scales of Rs.2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 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 (Prem Singh Gill and others versus State of Punjab. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by this Court vide decision dated 2.3.2010 rendered in CWP No.16856 of 2009 (Tehal Singh and others versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Agricultural) and other connected cases. The present writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Tehal Singh's case (supra). Dasti. September 23, 2011 Mohinder (SURYA KANT) JUDGE