HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** COCP No.1669 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2011 **** Joginder Singh Baledar . . . . Petitioner VS. RC Nayyar IAS & Ors. . . . . 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: None for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). These contempt proceedings have arisen out of the alleged non-compliance of various orders of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms whereof the daily-wage service was to be counted towards the ‘qualifying service’ for pension and other retiral dues. (2). Vide an order dated 10.11.2010, these proceedings were adjourned sine die as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8306 of 2009 had remitted a number of writ petitions to this Court for afresh decision on the issue. (3). The learned Single Judge of this Court has thereafter decided those cases holding that the services of the daily- COCP No.1669 of 2008.doc - 2 – wagers is to be counted towards pension and pensionary benefits vide judgement dated 22.03.2011. (4). Suffice it to say that in case the State of Punjab or other authorities have accepted the above-mentioned judgement of the Single Judge, the daily-wage service rendered by the petitioner in the present case requires to be counted towards pension and pensionary benefits and consequential benefits must flow in his favour. (5). The contempt proceedings are accordingly disposed of at this stage with a direction to the respondents to consider and grant necessary relief to the petitioner in the light of the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Hari Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and others (CWP No.7378 of 2003) and other connected matters decided on 22.03.2011. (6). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Rules discharged. (8). However, in case the Single Bench decision cited above has been assailed in an appeal, the parties shall abide by the final outcome of the appeal. (9). Dasti . 27.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge