Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

B.R. AGGARWAL versus M.P. BANSAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


B.R. Aggarwal v. M.P. Bansal - COCP-9-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1104 (23 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.9 of 2005

DATE OF DECISION:2.3.2006

***

B.R. Aggarwal

..PETITIONER

VS.

M.P. Bansal

..RESPONDENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,

Present:- Mr.D.S. Rawat,Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Girish Agnihotri,Advocate

for the respondent.

***

JUDGMENT:

On 10.2.2006 when the instant contempt petition came up for hearing, it was pointed to the respondent that HRA, leave encashment, gratuity and interest have not been paid, despite the fact that certain other benefits were released to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in the Court today, a copy of which has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner, it has been pointed out that an amount of Rs.2,43,950/- representing leave encashment has been released to the petitioner on 27.2.2006 and stand paid to him vide cheque bearing No.988404-405 dated 24.2.2006. It has further been pointed out that interest of Rs.10571/- has also been paid vide office order dated 27.2.2006, which stands paid vide cheque No. 988406 dated 27.2.2006. Similarly commuted value of pension amounting to Rs.3,84,091/- stands paid to him vide office order dated 28.2.2006. However, with regard to HRA, it has been submitted that the petitioner is required to submit requisite receipts, certificates and affidavit in support of his claim as per Govt. instructions dated 24.2.1976 along with rent receipts. To this effect, the petitioner has been advised vide letters Annexures R-1 and R-2. Similarly with regard to gratuity, it has been submitted that proceedings under Rule 7 of the HCS (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 for various acts of omission and commission committed by the petitioner in four different cases, have been ordered and, therefore, payment of gratuity has been with-held, till the disposal of the proceedings.

In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the orders dated 27.7.2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court stand complied with. Accordingly, rule is discharged.

March 2,2006 (M.M. KUMAR)

Jiten JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.