CWP No.15915 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15915 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 **** Prem Paul & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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. PK Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners have retired from the post of Principals/Masters/Mistresses/Teachers/Peons/Clerks from the Government-Aided Privately Managed Schools and they seek a direction for the release of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this writ petition has already been settled in favour of the petitioners by two Division Bench decisions of this Court in (i) Samdhershi Kumar Bedi & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (CWP No.11553 of 2004) decided on September 27, 2005; and (ii) CWP No.15915 of 2009.doc - 2 - Kamlesh Goyal and Others v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No.5127 of 2008) decided on 24.09.2008, copies whereof are also placed on record as Annexure P9 & P10, respectively. 3. The writ petitions accordingly deserve to be allowed in terms of the above-cited Division Bench decisions. 4. Learned State counsel, however, points out that the State of Punjab has preferred Special Leave Petition(s)/Appeals against both the judgements and as an interim measure the Contempt Proceedings arising out of these cases have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petitions though are allowed in terms of Samdhershi Kumar Bedi and Kamlesh Goyal’s cases (supra), however, subject to the conditions that the petitioners in the present cases shall be entitled to seek implementation of this order only after the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP(s)/ Appeal(s) and the parties shall be bound by such final decision even if no separate SLPs are filed in the present case. 6. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 18.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE