Subash Chander vs The State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—Notice of motion.

Ms. Kavita Arora, learned AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply four copies of the petition to the learned AAG during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply (ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to refix his pay at Rs. 680/-as on 2.1.1978 in terms of the clarification issued by respondent No.2, vide order dated 30.5.2003 (Annexure P-1) and grant him the consequential service benefits accruing therefrom.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court dated 26.07.2005 rendered in CWP No.11187 of 2005, Sagar Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others, and dated 2.11.2007 rendered in CWP No. 16885 of 2007, Gurdev Singh Khabra vs State of Punjab and Others.

In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in CWP No. 11187 of 2005 and 16885 of 2007.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the signatures of the Court Secretary.