IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15225 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 05, 2009 Pritpal Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.C. Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Circular dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners retired in various capacities on attaining the age of superannuation between the period 31.7.2003 and 31.10.2006. In view of the date of retirement falling between the two dates given hereinabove, the petitioners have been put at dis-advantage as new table of CWP No.15225 of 2009 [2] commutation of pension has been provided under letter dated 31.10.2006. The earlier table that was in existence prior to 31.7.2003 has been restored. Learned counsel has pointed out that while dealing with the issue, Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 21.7.2008, decided the matter in favour of persons similarly situated as the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 titled `Gian Chand & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Learned counsel further states that the issue is covered by subsequent judgment dated 14.1.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17230 of 2008 titled `Om Parkash & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another’. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Learned counsel for the respondents states that a Special Leave Petition had been filed against the judgment rendered in Gian Chand’s case (supra). However, while taking note of this fact, this Court, while dealing with the case of Om Parkash (supra), has made the order subject to CWP No.15225 of 2009 [3] decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel for the respondents states that let this matter be decided in terms of Om Parkash’s case (supra). In view of the above, the petition is disposed of in terms of judgment dated 14.1.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.17230 of 2008 titled `Om Parkash & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another’. (AJAI LAMBA) October 05, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?