ORDER 1. The matter relates to termination of the first respondent as Deputy Advocate General by the State of Punjab. The respondent challenged the termination order dated 19-7-1993 as illegal on the ground that her appointment was as a regular government servant and not a contractual engagement as counsel. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 30-5-1997 upheld her contention and allowed her writ petition, declared the termination order dated 19-7-1993 as illegal and quashed it. He also held that the first respondent was entitled to all consequential benefits. The intra-court appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench on 6-2-1998. The said judgment is under challenge. 2. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 6-2-1998 in the case of the first respondent was followed by the High Court in a subsequent similar case relating to termination of a Sr. Deputy Advocate General-C.S. Cheema v. State of Punjab. The State challenged the decisions of the High Court in the case of the first respondent (in this appeal) and in C.S. Cheema (in CA No. 6057 of 2004). Both appeals were being listed together for final hearing. 3. When the appeals came up on 29-1-2009, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the State Government has taken a decision to implement the order of the High Court in C.S. Cheema and absorb him in service. Recording the said submission, CA No. 6057 of 2004 was dismissed. 4. With reference to this appeal (relating to S.K. Bhatia), the learned counsel for the State sought time to secure specific instructions. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 19-2-2009 at the request of the counsel for the State and again adjourned at his request today. When the matter came up today, the learned counsel for the State submitted that he has not received any instructions from the State. 5. When the State Government has accepted the decision rendered by the High Court in C.S. Cheema which followed the impugned judgment, the State Government has to adopt the same yardstick in this case also, unless there are any distinguishing factors or circumstances. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any difference between the facts of this case, and the facts in C.S. Cheema. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any difference between the facts of this case, and the facts in C.S. Cheema. 6. We are also informed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first respondent has attained the age of superannuation and all that therefore remains to be done is to process and disburse the terminal/retiral benefits. 7. In view of the above we dismiss this appeal. Needless to say that the retiral benefits due to the respondent in accordance with law, will have to be processed expeditiously, that is, within four months.