CWP No.13334 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13334 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2011 **** Prem Chand Bansal & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & 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: Mr. Nirmal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioners are retired employees of the Government of Punjab. They seek restoration of the benefit of commutation of pension as it was in existence before the impugned circular/letter dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P4) was issued, which has already been set aside by this Court in CWP No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and CWP No.13334 of 2011.doc - 2 – others vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 21.07.2008. (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition deserves to be allowed in terms of CWP No.14722 of 2008 (Bhajan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & others) and other connected matters decided on 14.01.2009, the operative part of which reads as under:- “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 07.11.2008, 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.” CWP No.13334 of 2011.doc - 3 – (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 28.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge