IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8833 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 13, 2010. Saranjit Singh Dhaliwal and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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, who are the retired persons from different departments of the Government of Punjab, seek quashing of the Circular dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-5). It is not in dispute that the aforesaid circular (Annexure P-5) was also subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others versus State of Punjab and others), which has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.7.2008 with the following directions:- “...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 C.W.P.No .8833 of 2010 2 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 petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 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.25856 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, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment in Gian Chand's case (supra). 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 only after the decision in the SLP and/or if the interlocutory order staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage. Dasti. May 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE