IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 10848 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 23, 2009 PREM CHAND ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Petitioners, 23 in number, have filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioners the benefits in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby impugned circular dated Civil Writ Petition No. 10848 of 2009 2 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-6) had been quashed. Under the Circular, computation of pension was allowed at reduced rates. Directions have been issued to restore the computation of pension of the petitioners at revised rate, in accordance with the revised table, issued as per Circular dated 31.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the case of the petitioners is covered under the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 21.7.2008 (Annexure P-1). It has further been pointed out that the case of the petitioners would also be covered under a subsequent decision in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.3.2009 (Annexure P-9). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. A copy of the petition has been supplied to Shri Chahal. Shri Chahal has not been able to distinguish the facts. Having considered the matter, I am of the opinion that this matter needs to be allowed in terms of decision rendered in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.3.2009 (Annexure P-9), relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “It is not in dispute that the circular dated 29th July, 2003 impugned in this petition was also subject matter of challenge in CWP No.15554 of 2007. The said writ petition has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 10848 of 2009 3 vide judgment dated July 21, 2008 and the following directions have been given:- After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed and our opinion is further strengthened by the ratio of law, laid down in V. Kasturi's case (supra) which has been followed by Hoshiar Singh's case (supra). The State cannot be permitted to create two categories of retirees by providing a cut off date as there is no rationale. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 29.7.2003 and restore the pension of the petitioners, in accordance with the revised table, issued as per the Circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6).” The issue involved in this petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment 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 7.11.2008 contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment/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 even the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage.” In view of the fact that, as per the respondents, the case is not distinguishable, this petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP 7446 Civil Writ Petition No. 10848 of 2009 4 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 30.3.2009 (Annexure P-9). July 23, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?