IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9030 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.3.2009. Mohinder Partap others ---Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice in C.M. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. 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 judgement 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. CWP No. 9030 of 2007 (O&M) -2- 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 judgement. It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgement 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 judgement all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement/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. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.3.2009 lucky