CWP No.6304 of 2005.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 1. CM No.2180 of 2010 in/and CWP No.6304 of 2005 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 **** Prem Chand . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 2. CM No.2181 of 2010 in/and CWP No.6327 of 2005 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 **** Bharat Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 3. CM No.2183 of 2010 in/and CWP No.6300 of 2005 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 **** Shamsher Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 4. CM No.2192 of 2010 in/and CWP No.10046 of 2001 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 **** Surjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.6304 of 2005.doc - 2 – 5. CM No.2194 of 2010 in/and CWP No.12433 of 2004 Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 **** Sher Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.6304, 6327, 6300 of 2005; 1046 of 2001; and 12433 of 2004 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. (2). The petitioners in these cases were working on different posts under respondents No.2 and 3, namely, in Ranjit Sagar Dam and have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to release their Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity and other pensionary benefits which are said to have been withheld to recover the CWP No.6304 of 2005.doc - 3 – arrears of ‘special’ and ‘retrenchee’ increments earlier granted to the petitioners. (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a decision dated 27.05.2009 rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.5568 of 2008 titled as Charan Dass and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, the concluding para whereof reads as follows:- “In view of the above, the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioners either on account of retrenchment increments or special increments allegedly erroneously given. However, the respondents are entitled to re-fix the emoluments by reducing the special increment only. Consequently, the pay of the petitioners will be re-fixed and in case of those employees who have already retired from service, the retiral benefits shall be released within a period of two months. The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension/retiral benefits at the statutory rate wherever admissible and at the rate of 6% on pension and other retiral benefits where statutory interest is not provided for. Any amount deducted from the retiral benefits of the salary of the petitioners shall be refunded within the aforesaid period.” (4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in terms of the decision rendered in Charan Dass’s case (supra). (5). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.6304 of 2005.doc - 4 – (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.02.2010 vishal shonkar