CWP No.1073 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1073 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Amarjit Singh . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.1077 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Bishan Dass . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.1236 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Balbir Singh . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.1263 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 **** Balbir Chand . . . Petitioner 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? **** Present: Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** CWP No.1073 of 2010.doc - 2 – SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.1073, 1077, 1236 & 1263 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.1073 of 2010. (2). The petitioner joined as a Work-charged employee with the respondent No.3, namely, Ranjit Sagar Dam and his services were regularized as Loco Driver w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity and other pensionary benefits which are said to have been withheld to recover the arrears of special and retrenchee increments earlier granted to the petitioner. CWP No.1073 of 2010.doc - 3 – (3). 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.1073 of 2010.doc - 4 – (4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part in terms of the decision rendered in Charan Dass’s case (supra). (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.03.2010 vishal shonkar