CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 1. CWP No.3065 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Harbans Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 2. CWP No.3070 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Gardhari Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 3. CWP No.60 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Ved Parkash . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 4. CWP No.115 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Malkiat Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 5. CWP No.605 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Harnam Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 2 – **** 6. CWP No.607 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Kartar Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 7. CWP No.608 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Jit Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 8. CWP No.611 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Agia Ram and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 9. CWP No.610 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Gurmukh Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 10. CWP No.619 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Behari Lal and another . . . . Petitioners CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 3 – VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 11. CWP No.628 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Onkar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 12. CWP No.629 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Shamsher Singh and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 13. CWP No.956 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Janak Raj . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 14. CWP No.1000 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Tara Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 15. CWP No.1018 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Dalip Singh . . . . Petitioner CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 4 – VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 16. CWP No.1064 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Chaman Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 17. CWP No.1371 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Shakuntla Devi . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 18. CWP No.1439 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Sontokh Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 19. CWP No.1630 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Ajit Singh and others . . . . Petitioners 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? CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 5 – **** Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate; Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP No.3065, 3070, 60, 115, 605, 607, 608, 611, 610, 619, 628, 629, 956, 1000,1018, 1064, 1371, 1439 & 1630 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.3065 of 2010. (2). Upon notice of motion, Ms. Charu Tuli, Ld. Sr. DAG, Punjab who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file any counter-reply. (3). The petitioner in this case as well as those in the connected matters, 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 CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 6 – pensionary benefits which are said to have been withheld to recover the arrears of special and retrenchee increments earlier granted to the petitioner(s). (4). 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.” CWP No.3065 of 2010.doc - 7 – (5). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in terms of the decision rendered in Charan Dass’s case (supra). (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.02.2010 vishal shonkar