IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.17960 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 23, 2011. Chain Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mrs.Avinash Mandla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, 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 four 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. CWP No.17960 of 2011 [2] The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondent- authorities to provide them employment as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 8.11.1993 (Annexure P-1) The above stated relief has been sought on the basis of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.787 of 2008 (Dharam Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.11.2009 which has been upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No.1412 of 2009 (State of Punjab and others versus Dharam Singh and others decided on 21.1.2010 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 28.2.2011. In these circumstances when the matter stands settled upto the highest Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioners for providing them employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 8.11.1993, in the light of the above cited decisions. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 23, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE