CWP No.414 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.414 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Kulbir Singh Thakur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is a retired Driver from the Office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, seeks quashing of the order dated 17.07.2007 (Annexure P23). He further seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to protect his pay as was being drawn by him in the Punjab State Handloom and Textile Development Corporation Ltd. (PUNTEX) and also to count the service rendered by him in the said Corporation towards retiral benefits. (2). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the first relief, namely, CWP No.414 of 2008.doc - 2 – the “protection of pay” is already answered in favour of the petitioner by a decision of this Court rendered in RSA No.3748 of 1999 titled as State of Punjab vs. Jai Gopal Sharma and others decided on 04.12.1999 (Annexure P14) which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 27.11.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No.5955 of 1998 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others (Annexure P16). (3). As regards the second relief, namely, the “counting of service rendered by him in the autonomous body owned and controlled by the State Government of Punjab”, the issue stands answered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 24.03.2009 rendered in State of Punjab and others vs. Subhash Chander Chadha and another, LPA No.44 of 2006 against which the SLP preferred by the State of Punjab has been turned down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01.10.2009 in SLP No.23807 of 2009 (Annexure P24). (4). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the above-mentioned decisions of this Court. The respondents are directed to CWP No.414 of 2008.doc - 3 – grant the necessary reliefs to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 23.02.2010 vishal shonkar