LPA No.382 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * LPA No.382 of 1991 Date of decision : January 8, 2008 * * * * * Jagjit Singh ............Appellant through Sh. R.D Bawa, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and another ...........Respondents through Mr. Amol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. H.S Sidhu, Advocate. * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA * * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? * * * * * VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE This appeal has been filed, aggrieved by the order of learned single judge, by the appellant, inter alia stating that the learned single judge completely lost sight of the decision of this Court in T.S Madan Vs. State of Punjab and another in CWP No.3136 of 1983 decided on 10.8.1983 which was upheld by the LPA No.382 of 1991 2 Supreme Court specifically interpreting Rule 8 of Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 and therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit under the said rule which rule was different for the employees who would come under Rule 4 of the 1965 Rules and Rule 5 of 1968 Rules. The learned Single Judge has not taken that distinction into consideration while allowing the writ petition of the private respondent. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge completely lost sight of the distinction made in both the Rules as interpreted by this Court in case of T.S Madan Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We partly allow this appeal and set aside that part of the order of the learned single Judge where the writ petition has been allowed and direct that the respondent-State of Punjab shall decide the matter of the applicability of Rule 8 keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in T.S Madan Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) and grant benefit to the appellant, if he is found entitled thereto. Respondent is directed to decide the matter within a period of 8 weeks. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE January 8, 2008 ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) ritu JUDGE LPA No.382 of 1991 3