IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13913 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Jeet Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 5.3.2007 (Annexure P-3). Vide the order under challenge, respondent No.2 i.e. Joint Director, Food Civil Supplies (Storage), Punjab, has issued directions that payment of pension to the retired Provincial Reserve Chowkidar should be stopped. Resultantly, the petitioner has also been asked CWP No.13913 of 2007 [2] to deposit/refund the amount received by him. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman (PR Chowkidar) through Department of Employment, Government of Punjab. The petitioner joined on 5.6.1979. He served the Department till the date of retirement i.e. 31.3.2001 without any break in service. The petitioner was paid retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc. The status of the petitioner was shown as `temporary basis’, however, the process of recruitment was regular. Salary of the petitioner was also paid as per the regular pay scales from the initial date of appointment. It has been pleaded that similar issue had been raised before this Court and decided favourably. In this regard, reference has been made to Civil Writ Petition No.14418 of 2008 titled `Mela Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’, decided on 11.5.2009. It has further been mentioned that the issue was dealt with in Civil Writ Petition No.16786 of 2001 titled `Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab’, decided on 5.12.2002. Resultantly, the respondent-Government took a decision to implement the judgment of the Court vide instructions/ order dated 17.4.2009. CWP No.13913 of 2007 [3] The decision was in view of the fact that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the State Government in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the facts from those involved in Civil Writ Petition No.14418 of 2008. Learned counsel has also endorsed the fact that the respondents have taken a conscious decision to implement the judgment of the Court. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits on the same analogy as in the cases to which reference has been made hereinabove. (AJAI LAMBA) July 24, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?