IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 16328 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 27, 2009 SHAMSHER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in CWP 14521 of 2009 (Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 17.9.2009 (Annexure P-14) and earlier judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 27.1.2005 (Annexure P-9). Notice of motion. Civil Writ Petition No. 16328 of 2009 2 On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the name of the petitioner was forwarded by the Employment Exchange for employment with the Department of Food and Supply, Punjab. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner joined duty on 5.8.1979. On 29.2.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was made to retire from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that for all intents and purposes, the services of the petitioner were treated to be on regular basis, however, after retirement, retiral benefits have not been given. Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that considering the law laid down by this court, even instructions have been issued on 17.4.2009 to give retiral benefits to persons such as the petitioner and, therefore, it is the conceded position that the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits. Considering the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP 7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 27.1.2005 (Annexure P-9). October 27, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?