Hon'ble Dr. CHAUHAN, J.— Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This matter has come up before us upon reference having been made by a Two-Judge Bench vide order dated 4.11.2009 upon noticing an inconsistency in the views expressed by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Balwan AIR 1999 SC 3333 on one hand and in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Mahender Singh & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 606; and State of Haryana vs. Bhup Singh AIR 2009 SC 1252, on the other hand. The inconsis-tency, which was pointed out in the said order was noticed by taking into account the para 5 of the judgment in Balwan (supra) which is as follows:-

“……..However, in order to see that a life convict does not lose any benefit available under the remission scheme which has to be regarded as the guideline, it would be just and proper to direct the State Government to treat the date on which his case is/was required to be put up before the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution as the relevant date with reference to which their cases are to be considered ……”

3. The views expressed in Mahender Singh (supra) and Bhup Singh (supra) were as follows :-

Mahender Singh (supra)

“40. Whenever, thus, a policy deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document