IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12189 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 12, 2009 AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) The petitioners, 22 in number, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the same benefits as granted to the petitioners in CWP 15554 of 2007 decided on 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby circular dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-6) has been quashed. Commutation of pension to the petitioners at reduced rate has been quashed and directions were issued to restore the commutation of pension at the revised rate, in accordance with revised table, issued as per circular dated 31.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Civil Writ Petition No. 12189 of 2009 2 facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the ones involved in CWP 15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.7.2008. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to draw any distinction in the judgment rendered in Gian Chand's case (supra). It is an admitted fact that the present case is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Gian Chand's case (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the present case is also covered by a subsequent judgment of this Court in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another) decided on 30.3.2009. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another) decided on 30.3.2009, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “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 Civil Writ Petition No. 12189 of 2009 3 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 judgement. 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 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.” August 12, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?