CWP No.12143 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12143 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.09.2010 **** Paramjit Singh & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . 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: Mr. PK Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners who retired as Masters/Mistresses/Teachers from the Government-Aided Privately Managed Schools, seek a direction for the release of their pensionary benefits under the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issues raised in these writ petitions already stand decided in favour of the petitioners by two Division Bench judgements of this Court in (i) Samdhershi Kumar Bedi & Ors. v. State of Punjab and CWP No.12143 of 2009.doc - 2 - Anr. (CWP No.11553 of 2004) decided on September 27, 2005; and (ii) Kamlesh Goyal and Others v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No.5127 of 2008) decided on 24.09.2008, copies of which are also placed on record as Annexure P9 & P10, respectively. 3. The writ petitions, accordingly, deserve to be allowed in terms of the above-cited Division Bench decisions. 4. Learned State counsel, however, points out that the State of Punjab has preferred Special Leave Petition(s)/Appeals against both the judgements (cited supra) in and as an interim measure the Contempt Proceedings arising out of these cases have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petitions though are allowed in terms of Samdhershi Kumar Bedi and Kamlesh Goyal’s cases (supra), however, subject to the conditions that the petitioners in the present cases shall be entitled to seek implementation of this order only after the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP(s)/Appeal(s) and the parties shall be bound by such final decision. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. Dasti . (SURYA KANT) CWP No.12143 of 2009.doc - 3 - JUDGE 08.09.2010 vishal shonkar