IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 860 of 2010 (O&M) and connected appeals Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 Panjab University, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus Pal Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 in LPA No. 860 of 2010; for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 in LPA No. 862 of 2010; and for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in LPA No. 863 of 2010. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 in LPA No. 861 of 2010 and 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 4 appeals* filed un- der Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petitions in terms of judgment of even date rendered in CWP No. 14650 of 2004 (Rajman Yadav and others v. Panjab University, Chandigarh). 2. It is conceded position that against the judgment dated 9.12.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Rajman Yadav's LPA No. 860 of 2010 (O&M) & connected appeals case (supra), the appellant-Panjab University has preferred LPA No. 295 of 2009 and the Letters Patent Bench while setting aside the said judgment of learned Single Judge remanded the matter back for fresh decision, vide order dated 5.11.2009, by observing as under: "1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, directing framing of policy for regu- larization in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey (SC) 2007 (4) SCC 179. 2. We have perused the impugned judgment and heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that learned Single Judge has gone solely by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra), which has been overruled in Official Liquidator v. Daya Nand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1. We find it to be so. Ac- cordingly, without going into any further question, the im- pugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge for fresh decision, in accordance with law." 3. In view of above, these appeals are also disposed of in terms of order dated 5.11.2009 passed by the Letters Patent Bench in Rajman Yadav's case (supra). 4. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 9, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 2 LPA No. 860 of 2010 (O&M) & connected appeals * 1. LPA No. 860 of 2010 (O&M) Panjab University, Chandigarh v. Pal Singh and others 2. LPA No. 861 of 2010 (O&M) Panjab University, Chandigarh and another v. Surjit Kumari and others 3. LPA No. 862 of 2010 (O&M) Panjab University, Chandigarh v. Gurjit Singh and others 4. LPA No. 863 of 2010 (O&M) Panjab University, Chandigarh v. Surinder Singh and others (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 9, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3