C.W.P No. 19258 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.20507 of 2008 and C.W.P No. 19258 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : December 22, 2008 Swarn Lata Gupta and another ...... Petitioner through Mr.Y.P.Singla, Advocate v. State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondents through Mr. Anil Sharma, Sr.DAG Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition is stated to be covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2008, rendered in CWP No.15554 of 2007, Gian Chand and others vs State of Punjab and others. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, these facts are borne out. However, learned Sr. DAG Punjab states that this writ petition was admitted straightway and till date no written statement has been filed. On fact, he cannot distinguish the judgment given in CWP No.15554 of 2007, `Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others'. It has been brought to my notice that SLP bearing No.25856 of 2008 has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment in Gian Chand's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice and passed an order C.W.P No. 19258 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: staying contempt proceedings, if any. In the circumstances, it is directed that the increased pension shall be payable to the petitioners within two months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to their furnishing undertakings to the respective Drawing and Disbursing Officers that they would refund the amount in lump sum in the event of the appeal of the State of Punjab mentioned above being allowed. The arrears would be released to the petitioners only after the decision of the above mentioned SLP. However, it is made clear that in case on subsequent verification it transpires that on facts the case of the petitioners is not covered by the above said judgment, it would be open to the State to move for modification of this order. Petition disposed off. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 22, 2008. JUDGE `kk'