IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17383 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 16 , 2011. Bachhittar Singh and others .....Petitioners versus The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anuj Kohli, Advocate, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, 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) Notice of motion. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners who retired in different capacities from the Government services, seek a direction to grant them the same benefits as C.W.P.No .17383 of 2011 2 have been granted to the similarly placed persons, in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 21.7.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others versus State of Punjab and others), and restore/refund the rate of commuted pension at the current rate. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands answered by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.7.2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others versus State of Punjab and others), 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 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).....” It is, however, informed that the aforesaid decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25856 of 2008, which is still pending consideration and vide an interlocutory order dated 7.11.2008, contempt proceedings have been stayed. In this view of the matter, though the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment in Gian Chand's case (supra), however, with the C.W.P.No .17383 of 2011 3 condition that this order shall also be subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation only after the final decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even if no separate SLP is filed in the present case. Dasti. September 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE