Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surendra Pal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 December, 2008
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No. 23129 of 2008 and
CWP No. 18323 of 2007
Date of Decision: December 18, 2008
Surendra Pal Singh and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Sushil Saini, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anil Sharma, Sr. 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?
Ajay Tewari, J.
This petition is stated to be covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2008 rendered in CWP No. 15554 of 2007, Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others.
From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, these facts are borne out. However, learned Sr.DAG, Punjab states that this writ petition was admitted straight away and till date no written statement has been filed. On facts, he cannot distinguish the judgment given in CWP No. 15554 of 2007, Gian Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others. It has been brought to my notice that SLP bearing No. 25856 of 2008 has been CWP No. 18323 of 2007 -2- filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment in Gian Chand's case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice and passed an order staying contempt proceedings, if any.
In the circumstances it is directed that the increased pension shall be payable to the petitioners within two months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the petitioners furnishing undertakings to the respective Drawing and Disbursing Officers that they would refund the amount in lumpsum in the event of the appeal of the State of Punjab mentioned above being allowed. The arrears would be released to the petitioners only after the decision of the above mentioned SLP.
However, it is made clear that in case on subsequent verification it transpires that on facts the case of the petitioners is not covered by the above said judgment, it would be open to the State to move for modification of this order.
Petition disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 18, 2008 sunita