Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanji Lal And Others vs Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 4 March, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP NO.15700 OF 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 4.3.2009
Charanji Lal and others ..Petitioners
VERSUS
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Ms.Sonia G.Singh, Advocate for petitioners
Ms.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondents.
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
Notice of the CM No.3545 of 2009 to counsel opposite. Ms.Sekhon accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
For the reasons recorded in the application and with the consent of learned counsel , this matter is taken up today itself for final disposal at the motion stage.
It is not in dispute that the Circular dated 29.7.2003 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 of this Court vide judgment dated July 21, 2008 wherein following CWP NO.15700 OF 2008 2 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 petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge before 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. Since the issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, referred to above. It is, however, made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of the said 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 CWP NO.15700 OF 2008 3 vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.3.2009 MFK