JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. In all these petitions, the petitioners are seeking a step up in their pay to the level of their juniors, who, it is stated, despite being junior, are drawing a higher pay than the petitioners, the disparity usually occurring in each case, upon revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006. (Thus, the petitioners in each petition are seeking a step up of their pay to the level of juniors specific to each petitioner/each set of petitioners, such juniors not necessarily being the same across the different petitions.) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners all rely upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 15.05.2013, passed in Neelam Rani v. The State of Haryana and others (CWP no.11254 of 2010), in which case also the petitioner therein was in a similar situation, drawing a salary less than three of her juniors. That petition had been allowed with a direction to the respondent-State to step up her pay to the level of her juniors, calculating the arrears for the particular period for which such less salary had been drawn by her. She was also granted interest upon the difference of pay, @ 6% per annum. That judgment, in Neelam Ranis' case, admittedly became final up to the Supreme Court, though with the question of law left open by their Lordships. 3. These petitions had come up for hearing on different dates and had all been adjourned from time to time, with learned State counsel seeking time to take instructions as to whether the State wished to agitate the matter afresh, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court had left the question of law open. All the cases having been adjourned eventually till today, upon query, Mr. Doon, learned AAG, Haryana, submits that he has not received any instructions so far that the State wishes to re-agitate the whole matter. That being so, despite a few months having passed with no arguments raised by the State, and no review application filed in the cases earlier decided in the light of Neelam Ranis' case, I see no purpose to keep these petitions pending further. 4. That being so, despite a few months having passed with no arguments raised by the State, and no review application filed in the cases earlier decided in the light of Neelam Ranis' case, I see no purpose to keep these petitions pending further. 4. Consequently, these petitions are allowed in the same terms as Neelam Ranis' case (supra), with the competent authority amongst the respondents directed to consider the case of each of the petitioners for stepping up their pay scales to the level of their juniors, as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, and to pass a speaking order thereafter. The speaking order shall be passed in the case of each petitioner/identical set of petitioners within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. If the case of each/any petitioners is found to be covered by the decision in that case, the arrears of difference of pay be released to them within another period of 3 months thereafter, but with such arrears restricted to a period of 3 years and 2 months prior to the date of filing of the petition before this Court, by each particular petitioner. On such arrears, the petitioners would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, as was granted in Neelam Ranis' case. 6. It needs to be noticed that in Neelam Ranis' case, it is seen that no restriction of payment of arrears was ordered, but that was obviously for the reason that she had stated that she was drawing less salary than her juniors from 01.07.2009, with the petition having been filed in the year 2010 itself, i.e. soon thereafter, hence there was obviously no need to restrict the arreras. 7. A photocopy of this order be also placed on the files of the other connected matters.