IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5969 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 01, 2010. Dr.Rani Alang .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks extension in service beyond the age of 58 years on the basis of the Government Policy/Instructions dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) which provided that the State Government employees retiring between 22.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 would be entitled to seek extension in their service for a period of one year subject to their consent and other conditions. The above stated administrative instructions have been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.3.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No.2247 of 2010 (Kuldip Singh versus State of Punjab), the relevant part whereof reads as under:- “In view of above un-disputed position, impugned instructions, Annexure P-3, cannot be sustained and are quashed. We, however, make it clear that this order will operate prospectively and will not affect the benefits already given under the said C.W.P.No .5969 of 2010 2 instructions. It is also made clear that the State will be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law.” (emphasis applied). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this Court has made operative the judgment dated 29.3.2010 'prospectively', the right already accrued in favour of the petitioner, who completed the age of 58 years on 3.3.2010, stands duly protected and therefore, she is entitled to seek extension in service for a period of one year. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the order dated 29.3.2010, I do not find any merit in the contention noticed above. Once the instructions have been quashed, no order granting extension in service under those very non-existing instructions can be passed. The operative part of the order dated 29.3.2010 which provides that the said order will operate prospectively, would necessarily mean that those employees who have meanwhile taken the benefit of the instructions, cannot be asked to refund such benefits. In other words, the pay and emoluments or the services rendered on account of extension would not be washed out by virtue of the judgment dated 29.3.2010. However, the incidental factor like the instructions having remained in operation like a wind fall for a short duration between 22.1.2010 to 29.3.2010 cannot be extended beyond the ordained boundaries. Dismissed. April 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE