CWP No.4370 of 1993.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4370 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 **** Prem Chand Singla & Others . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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. V.K. Jindal, Advocatefor the petitioners Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.14924 to 14926 of 1990; 8166 of 1991; 13044 & 13328 of 1992; 187, 4370, 4808 & 6474 of 1993 as common issues are involved for adjudication. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.4370 of 1993. (2). The petitioners have been working as Up- Vaidyas/Dispensers in the Department of Ayurveda, Government of Punjab. They assert their entitlement for promotion as Vaidyas under the Punjab Ayurvedic Department Class-III (Technical Service) Rules, 1963 (in short, ‘the Rules’). (3). The petitioners have placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgement dated December 12, 1985 rendered by this Court in LPA No.6 of 1982 titled as State of CWP No.4370 of 1993.doc - 2 – Punjab and another vs. Shri Shiv Ram Dispensar and others (Annexure P7). (4). Notwithstanding the above-stated decision, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit and have maintained that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Vaidyas. (5). During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners have retired from service and in these circumstances in the event of acceptance of their claim, they would be entitled to the revised retiral benefits only. (6). Since the eligibility of the petitioners for the post of Vaidyas does not appear to have been considered by the respondents in the light of the opinion and the observations expressed by this Court in Shiv Ram Dispensar’s case (supra), I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioners for their promotion to the posts of Vaidyas in the light of Shiv Ram Dispensar’s case (supra) and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Suffice it to observe that in case the petitioner’s are found entitled to the benefit, necessary promotion orders shall also be passed within the above-stated CWP No.4370 of 1993.doc - 3 – period with all consequential as well as other retiral benefits. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 19.05.2010 vishal shonkar