IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.19120 of 2009
Date of Decision: December 15, 2009
Som Parkash & Others
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under
Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari, quashing Circular dated 29.7.2003
(Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the petitioners retired in between
31.7.2003 to 31.10.2006. In view of the
implication of Circular dated 29.7.2003, that has
been impugned in this petition, the petitioners
CWP No.19120 of 2009 [2]
have been put at disadvantage. Annexure P-6
allowed commutation of pension at reduced rates.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the issue raised in this petition
is squarely covered by judgment dated 30.3.2009
rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7446 of
2008, `Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another’.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court,
Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
On request of the learned counsel,
the petition is taken up for final disposal today
itself.
In Sohan Singh’s case (supra), the
following has been held:-
“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
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.
CWP No.19120 of 2009 [3]
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.2585 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.”Learned counsel for the respondents
states that indeed the matter is covered by Sohan
Singh’s case (supra).
In view of the above, the petition
is allowed in the same terms as in judgment dated
30.3.2009 rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.7446 of 2008, `Sohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another’,
portion whereof has been extracted above.
(AJAI LAMBA) December 15, 2009 JUDGE avin1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?