Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHATTER SINGH versus R.K. BHENIWAL & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chatter Singh v. R.K. Bheniwal & Anr - COCP-727-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1128 (23 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 727 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION : 28.2.2006

***

Chatter Singh

..PETITIONER

VS.

R.K. Bheniwal and another

..RESPONDENTS

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

Present:- Mr. M.R. Verma,Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Suman Jain,Advocate

for respondent 1.

Mr.Mamta Singhal Talwar,AAG Haryana

***

JUDGMENT:

In pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 4.12.2003 in CWP No.18845 of 2003, the representation made by the petitioner was required to be decided within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of that order was received by the respondents. A detailed reasoned order was required to be passed in case the claim of the petitioner was to be declined. However, when the order was not complied with, the petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition.

In response to the notice to show cause, respondents 1 and 2 have filed separate replies. In the reply filed by respondent 2, it has been specifically stated that all the payments due to the petitioner have been released to him. The detail thereof is discernible from orders Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3. The aforementioned orders show that arrears of pension from 1.7.2003 to October 2005 and commutation of pension have been granted to the petitioner, on 21.12.2005.

Pension for the month of January 2006 has also been released to the petitioner on 6.2.2006 (R-2). All the retiral benefits have also been paid to the petitioner, as per the details given in R-3. The aforementioned document shows that the petitioner has been paid gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, arrears of ADA, GIS arrears in respect of of 5th

pay commission, (arrears of 5th

pay w.e.f. 4/99 to 12/99)

medical allowances and pension contribution.

After hearing learned counsel, I am of the view that the order of this Court dated 4.12.2003 stands complied with in letter and the spirit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has still express dissatisfaction with regard to some amount like provident fund by stating that amount paid is lesser than the entitlement of the petitioner. The contempt petition is disposed with with the observation that if the petitioner still feels aggrieved by the payment made by the respondents, he can make a representation which shall be looked into by the respondents and if any amount is found due to the petitioner, the same shall be paid to him.

Rule is discharged.

February 28,2006 (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.