IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3347 of 2006 Date of Decision: October 05, 2009 Bhagwan Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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 mandamus directing the respondents to release retiral benefits to the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner served the respondents as Watchman since 25.5.1983 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.10.2005. It has been contended that the petitioner was given employment after his name had been forwarded by the Employment Exchange. Appointment itself was by regular process of CWP No.3347 of 2006 [2] selection. After superannuation, retiral benefits were denied, hence the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue has been addressed by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007 titled `Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’ decided on 22.7.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that indeed the matter is covered by Amrik Singh’s case (supra). It has also been pointed out that similar matter had earlier been addressed by Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.7780 of 2004 titled `Rakha Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’ decided on 27.1.2005. On the issue, even an appeal had been carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which has been dismissed. It has further been pointed that instructions have been issued on 17.4.2009 for giving effect to the judgments on the issue. Considering the above, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 22.7.2009 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007 titled `Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. (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?