JUDGMENT : Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. By this common order, above-mentioned two Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed off. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.10171 of 2017 titled 'Kartar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others.' 2. In the present writ petitions, the prayer which has been made by the petitioners is that their pensionary benefits should be fixed as per the last pay drawn by them while working on the higher post on officiating/current duty charge. To support their prayer, the petitioners are relying upon a judgment of this Court in CWP No.17358 of 2015 titled as 'Jagjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 09.09.2016. 3. The grievance which has been raised by the petitioners is that they were the senior most employees who were working in the department and they were given officiating charge of the higher posts on the account that no regular promotions were being made due to the pending dispute in the seniority. It has been alleged that the posts were lying vacant against which the petitioners were asked to discharge the duties of Head Master/Principal/BPEO as well as the drawing and disbursing officers, therefore, not only the petitioners are entitled for the salary of the post of which they were discharging the duties, but as they retired while discharging the duties of higher post, the last pay drawn should be taken into account for fixing their pensionary benefits. 4. Counsel for the respondents has controverted the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were only asked to perform the duties on the higher post of officiating/current duty charge for which the petitioners have already been paid the scales and emoluments attached to the said higher posts, but for computing the pensionary benefits, only the substantive rank of an employee should be taken into account and as the petitioners were never promoted substantively to the higher posts, hence, they cannot claim the pensionary benefits of pay-scales and emoluments attached to the said higher posts. 5. 5. Further, in respect of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.17358 of 2015 titled as 'Jagjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others', counsel for the respondents states that the State had preferred a LPA No.37 of 2017 and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to pass an order on 02.02.2017 for keeping the order of learned Single Bench in abeyance. The said order has been attached as Annexure R-1 with the reply and therefore, the pensionary benefits on the basis of last drawn wages on the higher post on officiating basis cannot be taken into consideration for the grant of pension and other benefits. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court a decision dated 25.09.2018 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No.37 of 2017. By the said order dated 25.09.2018, the LPA filed by the State of Punjab has been disposed of by giving the following directions:- "We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the appellants cannot take undue advantage of their own inaction or wrongs. Seniority is a condition of service. It has to be determined at the earliest in accordance with the Rules governing conditions of service. If any delay occurs because of multiple Court proceedings, the authorities ought to have evolved some mechanism to grant regular promotions to the senior most Lecturer/ Master/ Mistresses, for promotion is also a legitimate expectation in service career. The controversy nevertheless does not require further deliberations, for necessary directions to consider and promote the Lecturer/ Master/ Mistresses on higher posts as per their seniority and other eligibility conditions have already been issued by this Court in the above-cited order dated 23.05.2017. Let those directions be complied with within the time-frame given in the cited order. The respondents in the lead case or the writ petitioners in the connected petitions shall also be considered for regular promotion as per their seniority and eligibility conditions from the due date and in accordance with the Rules, which were in vogue at the time of occurrence of vacancies. The respondents in the lead case or the writ petitioners in the connected petitions shall also be considered for regular promotion as per their seniority and eligibility conditions from the due date and in accordance with the Rules, which were in vogue at the time of occurrence of vacancies. While the promotions shall be granted retrospectively but on notional basis only and they shall be entitled to fixation of their pension and other retiral benefits as per the pay deemed to have been drawn by them on the higher promotional posts. They shall also be entitled to arrears of pension and other retiral benefits alongwith interest @7% per annum. The needful shall be done within a period of six months. However, if the respondents in the lead case and the writ petitioners in the connected cases have not been granted emoluments for the period they officiated/worked on the higher posts, let such claim be also considered within a period of four months." 7. A bare perusal of the above-said order would show that the Division Bench has directed the State of Punjab to finalize the seniority and make promotions to the higher posts by considering the cases of all eligible including the petitioners with retrospective effect, but notionally without any arrears. 8. Counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petitions can be disposed of in view of above-mentioned directions given by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding LPA No.37 of 2017. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of directions given by the Division Bench while deciding LPA No.37 of 2017 and other connected cases, reproduced hereinabove.