HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9179 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2011 **** Bhinder Singh & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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. Rajesh K Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Sr. DAG Punjab accepts notice. 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(ies)/affidavit(s) at this stage. (2). Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem the present petition deserves to be allowed in terms of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No.14238 of 1991) decided on 10.03.2010 vide which similar issue i.e. whether the service rendered by the Teacher/Master in a Government Aided Privately Managed School, is countable towards the pensionary CWP No.9179 of 2011.doc - 2 – benefits on retirement from Government service, has been broadly dealt with by this Court. (3). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Sukhdev Singh’s case (supra), however, with a clarification that where there is an inordinate delay by the petitioner(s) and/or similarly situated in approaching the Court, the competent authority shall be at liberty to take conscious decision with regard to the restricted payment of consequential arrears. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge