WRIT PETITION 17050 of 2011 on 8 November 1993

Conclusion

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?

---

(Oral)Surya Kant, J.

Notice of motion.

Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learnedState counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall beautomatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have beendismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there isno need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to provide them employment as per the Rehabilitation andResettlement Scheme dated 8.11.1993 (Annexure P-1)

The above stated relief has been sought on the basis of thejudgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.787 of 2008 (Dharam Singhand others versus State of Punjab and others)decided on 26.11.2009 whichhas been upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No.1412 of 2009 (State ofPunjab and others versus Dharam Singh and othersdecided on 21.1.2010as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special LeavePetition on 28.2.2011.

In these circumstances when the matter stands settled upto thehighest Court, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with adirection to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitionersfor providing them employment under the Rehabilitation and ResettlementScheme dated 8.11.1993, in the light of the above cited decisions.However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners isdistinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order withina period oftwo monthsfrom the date of receiving a certified copy of thisorder.

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.

September 13, 2011Mohinder

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE