IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 2357 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 MALKAIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P-10). Further prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all retiral benefits in view of service rendered by the petitioner to the respondent-department i.e. Food and Supply department. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-10) indicates Civil Writ Petition No. 2357 of 2006 2 that while taking a decision on the justice demand notice, as directed by this Court while dealing with CWP 18057 of 2005, the claim for pensionary benefits has been rejected. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the name of the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange and the same was forwarded to the District Food and Supply Controller, Ludhiana, for appointment as PR-Chowkidar. The petitioner was interviewed and was duly selected by way of selection process. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 4.6.1980. The petitioner served the respondent- department till the date of his superannuation on 31.1.2004. During the period of service, the petitioner was given all benefits payable to a Government employee, such as, annual grade increments, revised pay-scales from time to time, special increments, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, medical allowance, etc. It has been pleaded that retiral benefits are not being given on the ground that the services of the petitioner remained temporary. It has been pleaded that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 13973 of 2007 (Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 9.7.2009. Learned counsel for the respondent-State admits that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), in which this Court has relied on earlier judgments, such as, judgments rendered in CWP 16786 of 2001 (Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab) decided on 5.12.2002 and CWP 7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 27.1.2005. Civil Writ Petition No. 2357 of 2006 3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further pointed out that the judgment rendered in Rakha Singh's case (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal of the State of Punjab, however, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further states that the respondent-State has issued instructions dated 17.4.2009 so as to implement the judgment of this Court and grant retiral benefits to all persons, such as the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 13973 of 2007 (Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 9.7.2009. September 24, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?