IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 584 of 1996 Date of Decision: July 19, 2011 Gurbachan Singh and others ….Petitioners Versus Ms. Kushamjit Sidhu and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7689 of 1992 claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give them holidays on Saturday and Sunday and other National holidays etc. in the same manner as is being given to other staff. In the event of the holidays not being granted, the petitioners claim that the respondents should grant over time allowance etc. so as to compensate the petitioners for the extra work they are called upon to do. The writ petition COCP No.584 of 1996 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.1993, the relevant part of the judgment is as under:- “For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms. Petitioners No. 5, 10 have already settled their disputes regarding these benefits, as mentioned in para 4 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, to which no reply has been filed. Thus, these petitioners will not be entitled to any benefits. Let the necessary relief be granted to the remaining petitioners within a period of three months.” The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court by not granting the necessary relief to the petitioners within stipulated period. Respondent No.2, in his reply, has specifically averred that “the Nagar Council of Sultanpur Lodhi, had no funds to make payments for some time but when the funds were available, the aforesaid resolution was passed and as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court, the due compliance therewith was done.” For delay, respondent No.2 has tendered unqualified apology, which is accepted. 2 COCP No.584 of 1996 Present petition is dismissed and the notice served on the respondents stands discharged. July 19, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3