IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19120 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 15, 2009 Som Parkash & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Circular dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners retired in between 31.7.2003 to 31.10.2006. In view of the implication of Circular dated 29.7.2003, that has been impugned in this petition, the petitioners CWP No.19120 of 2009 [2] have been put at disadvantage. Annexure P-6 allowed commutation of pension at reduced rates. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 30.3.2009 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7446 of 2008, `Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another’. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. On request of the learned counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal today itself. In Sohan Singh’s case (supra), the following has been held:- “It is not in dispute that the circular dated 29th July, 2003 impugned in this petition was also subject matter of challenge in CWP No.15554 of 2007. The said writ petition has been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment dated July 21, 2008 and the following directions have been given:- “After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed and our opinion is further strengthened by the ratio of law, laid down in V. Kasturi’s case (supra) which has been followed by Hoshiar Singh’s case (supra). The State cannot be permitted to create two categories of retirees by providing a cut off date as there is no rationale. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 29.7.2003 and restore the pension of the petitioners, in accordance with the revised table, issued as per the Circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6).” The issue involved in this petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. CWP No.19120 of 2009 [3] It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.2585 of 2008, which is still pending and vide interlocutory order dated 7.11.2008 contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment/ratio, referred to above. It is, however made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of SLP and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation through contempt or otherwise only on the disposal of the SLP or in the event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon’ble Supreme Court at any stage.” Learned counsel for the respondents states that indeed the matter is covered by Sohan Singh’s case (supra). In view of the above, the petition is allowed in the same terms as in judgment dated 30.3.2009 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7446 of 2008, `Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another’, portion whereof has been extracted above. (AJAI LAMBA) December 15, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?