IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11853 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.8.2010 Gurcharan Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.S.S.Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for declaring Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) ultra vires being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge is to the denial of benefit of the Rules for the purpose of payment of pension. Those employees who have retired from service on 1.7.1999 or thereafter, are held entitled to pension and the earlier retirees who have taken the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, have not been held entitled to the grant of pension. The aforesaid issue has been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (Civil Writ petition No.19895 of 2003 decided on 26.10.2009), of which one us (M.M.Kumar, J.) is a member. The validity of fixing the aforesaid date has CWP No.11853 of 2007 (O&M) [2] been upheld by the Division Bench while considering an earlier judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No.15809 of 2000, decided on 1.10.2001, Annexure P-9). Accordingly, the controversy does not survive for adjudication and the same is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Darshan Singh’s case (supra). Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 18.08.2010 sd