CWP No.11390 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11390 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.09.2010 **** Kulwant Singh and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & 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: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Lt. Col. Krishan Partap Singh for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondents No.1,3 to 6 Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners who are retired officials of PSEB, seek quashing of the Govt. notification dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P2) which has been adopted by the respondent-Board. The petitioners also seek a direction for restoration of the higher commutation of pension by applying the earlier policy decision qua them who have retired on CWP No.11390 of 2009.doc - 2 – different dates between 1st August, 2003 to 30th September, 2006. (2). During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in this writ petition stands answered in favour of the petitioners by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 21.07.2008 in CWP No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others vs. State of Punjab and others), a copy whereof is on record (Annexure P6). (3). Learned counsel for the respondents, however, points out that SLP has been preferred in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the above- mentioned decision and the same is still pending consideration. He further points out that as an interim measure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the contempt proceedings in that case. (4). In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the parties further agree that let this writ petition be also allowed in terms of the Division Bench judgment in Gian Chand’s case (supra), however, subject to the final decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP which shall be binding on both the parties in the instant case also. CWP No.11390 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). It is further directed that till the matter is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present order need not be implemented by the respondents. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.09.2010 vishal shonkar