IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18844 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 15, 2010. Er.Yash Pal Munjal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Pb. for respondent No.2. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General Punjab, who is on panel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 3. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to count the previous service rendered by him with respondent No.3 w.e.f. 1.12.1967 to 27.1.1976 towards `qualifying service' for the purpose of C.W.P.No .18844 of 2010 2 pensionary benefits. 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 11.8.2010 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19746 of 2008 (Bhupinder Singh Chawla versus The State of Punjab and others). The present writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore-stated order dated 11.8.2010 passed in Bhupinder Singh Chawla's case supra. Dasti. October 15, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE