IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7441 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 10, 2010. Harnam Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior 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) The petitioners are retired Teachers/Masters/Mistresses/ Headmasters/Headmistresses of various Privately Managed Government Aided Schools in the State of Punjab. They have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation after 31.3.2003. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to extend them the retiral benefits in terms of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Recruitment Benefits Scheme, 1992 (for short the `1992 Scheme'). The respondents have denied the pensionary benefits to the petitioners on the grounds that the aforesaid Scheme has been discontinued w.e.f. 31.5.2003. C.W.P.No .7441 of 2009 2 It is not in dispute that in terms of two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in CWP No.8168 of 2005 (Krishan Chand Gupta and others versus State of Punjab and another, decided on 27.9.2005 and CWP No.5127 of 2008 (Kamlesh Goyal and others versus State of Punjab and another), decided on 24.9.2008, the petitioners are entitled to be granted the pensionary benefits for the service rendered by them in Government Aided Privately Managed Schools. However, learned State counsel points out that against the aforesaid judgment in Kamlesh Goyal's case, the State has preferred Special Leave Petition No.14454 of 2009 (State of Punjab versus Kamlesh Goyal and others) in which the Supreme Court vide order dated 5.2.2010 has stayed the contempt proceedings and the SLP is still pending. In this view of the matter and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to the pensionary benefits in terms of the already cited two Division Bench decisions of this Court. However, it is directed that the respondents shall not be obligated to implement this order till the matter is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14454 of 2009 (State of Punjab versus Kamlesh Goyal and others). Dasti. March 10, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE