CWP No.4999 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 18.03.2011 Shakuntla Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and another Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. BS Chahala, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been supplied to him today itself in Court. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage without insisting for the reply. The petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 2003 to 2006 as per the details given in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The State Government earlier issued a circular dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P-5) prescribing a new table referred in Rule 11.5 (1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol. II) wherein the commutation value expressed earlier, has been reduced. This table is made applicable to the employees who retired on or after 31.07.2003. This circular was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 (Gian CWP No.4999 of 2011 (2) Chand and others Vs. State of Punjab and others). This Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2008 has quashed the circular aforesaid with the following observations:- “After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed and our opinion is further strengthened by the ratio of law laid down in V. Kasutri's case (supra) which has been followed by Hoshiar Singh's case (supra). The state cannot be permitted to create two categories of retirees by providing a cut off date as there is no rationale. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 29.07.2003 and restore the pension of the petitioners, in accordance with the revised table, issued as per the circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6).” The petitioners' case is squarely covered by the aforesaid observations. It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25856 of 2008, which is still pending and vide interlocutory order dated 7.11.2008 contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, this petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment/ratio, referred to above. It is, however, made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of CWP No.4999 of 2011 (3) SLP and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation through contempt or otherwise only on the disposal of the SLP or in the event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage. Disposed of. No costs. 18.03.2011 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE