- (1.) The present intra-Court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges the order dated 23.09.2011 passed in CWP No. 18781 of 1991 and order dated 23.11.2012 passed in review application No. 294 of 2012 in CWP No. 18781 of 1991 by a learned Single Judge of this Court through which the writ petition and the review application preferred by the appellants were dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the appellants, who were working as Assistant Editors in the Punjab State University Text Book Board, Chandigarh, are entitled to the same pay scales as being granted to Lecturers working in the Punjab University, Chandigarh. The learned Single Judge of this Court went through this issue and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants while holding that the nature of duties of the appellants vis-a-vis Lecturers were entirely different. The learned Single Judge further went on to hold that the claim of the appellants for equating pay scales, was primarily the job of experts like Pay Commissions, Anomaly Committees etc. and better left to them. It was further held that merely because that at an earlier point of time both the posts were placed in the same scale, would not clothe the appellants with an indefeasible right to claim equal scales for all times to come. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.09.2011, the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
(2.) When the above referred order was passed, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. The above order was challenged by the appellants by way of an Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 127 of 2012, in which the following order was passed:- "This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants who were petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 18781 of 1991 which was dismissed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991. It is fact that when the writ petition was disposed of along with other writ petition counsel for the appellants was not present and therefore, in his absence the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the decision given in CWP No. 19127 of 1991. From the reading of the writ petition it appears that the case of the appellants is entirely different than the petitioners of Civil Writ Petition No. 19127 of 1991. In that situation we permit the appellants to move an application before the learned Single Judge, for recalling the order in his writ petition and dispose of the same after providing an opportunity of hearing. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty."
(3.) Thereafter, the appellants filed CM No. 6327 of 2012 in CWP No. 18781 of 1991 for recalling the order passed in the writ petition, in which the learned Single Judge passed the following order:- "Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this application to file a review application as the writ petition was decided on merits. Application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application.";