IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2542 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 15, 2010. Raksha Rani and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners have retired from service after 31.7.2003. Their grievance is against non-release of full amount of commutation of pension to them. C.W.P.No .2542 of 2010 2 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this writ petition stands settled by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand and others versus State of Punjab and others), decided on 21.7.2008, followed by decision dated 30.3.2009 in CWP No.7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh versus State of Punjab and others). This writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Sohan Singh's case (supra), the operative part whereof reads as follows:- “.....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 event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage.” Dasti. 15-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE