Allowed

Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2010CWP/1091/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired education employees sought pension restoration based on the Gian Chand Sharma judgment. The Court allowed the petition in terms of Sohan Singh (2008), subject to the Supreme Court's SLP outcome, referring to Gian Chand Sharma which set aside a circular.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the decision in CWP No.7446 of 2008, subject to the outcome of SLP No.25856 of 2008.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.1091 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.1091 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.04.2010

¶6

¶7

Dalbir Singh and others . . . . Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners

¶18

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioners, who are retired employees of the Education Department, Government of Punjab, seek restoration of the benefit of commutation of their pension as it existed before the impugned circular/letter dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P1) was issued and which has already been set aside by this Court in CWP No.15554 of 2007 (Gian

¶22

Chand Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab

¶23

and others) , decided on 21.07.2008.

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.1091 of 2009.doc

¶26

(2).

¶27

During the course of hearing, counsel for the parties are ad idem that this writ petition may also be allowed in terms of the decision in CWP

¶28

No.7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh vs. State of

¶29

Punjab & others) decided on 30.03.2009, the operative part of which read as under:-

¶30

“It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgement 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 07.11.2008, contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgement all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement/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 event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon’ble Supreme Court at any stage.”

¶31

(3). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above-reproduced terms.

¶32

(4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dasti .

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

06.04.2010

¶35

vishal shonkar

Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Syal Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Rampyari Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Paramjit Singh Basra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kuljinder Singh Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Bhola Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.