IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.17696 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 21, 2011. Udai Chand and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Rattan. Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. 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. CWP No.17696 of 2011 [2] The petitioners who retired as Lecturers/Head Masters/ Mistresses from the Education Department, Government of Punjab, seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to take into consideration the services rendered by them in the Government Aided Privately Managed Schools as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits on their retirement from the Government service. 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 10.3.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP No.14238 of 1991 (Sukhdev Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others). The present writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the afore-stated order dated 10.3.2010 passed in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra). The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Sukhdev Singh's case (supra). In case the petitioners' claim is found covered under the aforesaid decision, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. September 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE