IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH cwr No,_7477 _ OF 2025 Paramit Kaur Wlo Paras Ram, aged about 68 years, 1/0 H.No. 261/18, Onkar Nagar, PO Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Aadhar Card: 3266-5151-5363 Mob. No. 98569-78547 Dalbir Kaur Wio Pritam Das, aged about 67 years, r/o H.No. 465/8, Hari Darbar Colony, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Aadhar Card: 5865-4827-2764 Mob. No. 88965-32589 «-PETITIONERSS Versus The State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. The Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh through its Secretary. The Chief Engineer Canal, Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Punjab (Hyde! Building), Sector 18-B, Chandigarh. The Executive Engineer, Madhopur Division, UBDC Gurdaspur. --RESPONDENTS CHANDIGARH MARTA a RAJ DATE: 10.03.2025 fovocaTe COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERSS Enrl. No. P/528/2002 PH-223875 © scanned with OKEN Scanner2 CIVIL WRIT PETITION Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction specially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the pay of the Petitionerss as on 01.01.1989 and 01.01.1996 respectively alongwith all consequential relief as have been granted to the other Junior Assistants in terms of decision of this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 22422 of 2010, titled as Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 16.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) anc in CWP No. 10789 2016 titled as Prem Kumar and Others decided on 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) which has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further re-fixed the pay/pay scale of the Petitioners by taking into consideration the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8100 attached to the post of Junior Assistants wef. 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits; AND/OR Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Petitioners are resident of Punjab and hence being the ctizen of India is competent to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. © scanned with OKEN ScannerNeutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037254 112. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA. AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7472-2025 — Date of Decision:19.03.2025 PARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER Petitioners Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioners. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the petitioners is covered by the judgment of this Court in CWP-22422-2010, titled as Anil Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 16.05.2012, which has already attained finality upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, hence, respondents were le to re-fix the salary of the petitioner in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996, while working on the post of Junior Assistant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the said grievance, as raised in the present peti n, has already been raised in the legal notice dated 08.05.2018, Annexure P-8, and in the representation dated 18.07.2024, Annexure P-9, but the same are still pending consideration with the respondents, and the petitioners will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a direction is issued to the respondents to decide the same by passing an appropriate speaking order in a time bound manner. 3 Notice of motion, On the asking of the Court, Mr, T.P. S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- © scanned with OKEN ScannerNeutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037254 (CWP-7472-2025, 2 State and submits that in case, legal notice dated 08.05.2018, Annexure P-8, and the representation dated 18.07.2024, Annexure P-9, have been received in the office of the concerned authorities and the same are still pending consideration with the authorities concerned, the same will be decided by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order by passing an appropriate speaking order and in case, after the decision, the petitioners are found entitled for any benefit, the same will be extended to them within a further period of four weeks and otherwise due reason for not accepting the claim will be mentioned for the information and necessary action. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the statement of leamed State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. 6. Ordered accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 19.03.2025 iy Whether speaking reasoned YesNo ether reportable Yes © scanned with OKEN Scanner