CWP No.19251 of 2010.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.19251 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 **** Tribhuwan Singh & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. Notice of motion. Mr. H.S. Brar, learned Addl. AG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter- reply at this stage. 2. The petitioners are retired Masters/Mistresses/ Teachers of the Government-Aided Privately Managed Schools and they seek a direction for the release of their pensionary benefits under the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992. 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this petition already stand resolved in favour of the petitioners by two Division Bench CWP No.19251 of 2010.doc - 2 - judgements of this Court in (i) Samdhershi Kumar Bedi & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (CWP No.11553 of 2004) decided on September 27, 2005; and (ii) Kamlesh Goyal and Others v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No.5127 of 2008) decided on 24.09.2008, copies whereof are also placed on record as Annexure P6 & P7, respectively. 4. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed in terms of the above-cited decisions. 5. Learned State counsel, however, points out that the State of Punjab has preferred Special Leave Petition(s)/Appeals against both the decisions (cited supra) and as an interim measure the Contempt Proceedings arising out of these cases have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition though is allowed in terms of Samdhershi Kumar Bedi and Kamlesh Goyal’s cases (supra), however, subject to the condition that the parties shall abide by the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court even if no separate SLP is filed in this case and the petitioners shall seek implementation of this order only after the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP(s)/Appeal(s). 7. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 27.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE