CWP No.9989 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9989 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.09.2010 **** Balbir Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. . . . . . 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. RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). 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 P6) was issued, which has already been set aside by this Court in CWP No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others), decided on 21.07.2008 (Annexure P1). CWP No.9989 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, reply filed by the respondents in Court, is taken on record. (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition deserves to be also allowed in terms of CWP No.7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & others) decided on 30.03.2009, 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.” (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 29.09.2010 vishal shonkar CWP No.9989 of 2010.doc - 3 –