Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALYAN SINGH versus GIAN SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kalyan Singh v. Gian Singh - COCP-1113-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4817 (27 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1113 of 2005

Date of decision: August 4, 2006.

Kalyan Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Gian Singh & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: None for the Petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner filed CWP No.4799 of 2005 for the grant of certain benefits, which was disposed of on 28.3.2005 with a direction to the District Education Officer (Secondary), Patiala to take a final decision on the representation which the petitioner had already made.

Though in compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner's claims have been considered by the District Education Officer(SE), Patiala, who passed the order dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure P-3) accepting most of his claims, however, alleging that the consequential benefits were not being paid to him, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

In response to the show cause, Smt. Pritpal Kaur Sidhu, DEO (SE), Patiala respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in which it is averred that consequential arrears, except that of ACP, have been paid to the petitioner by way of a bank draft dated 13.12.2005 which he declined to accept. Shri Cheema, Learned State Counsel, on instructions from Ashwani Kumar, LO, however, states that the petitioner has now accepted the payment of arrears on 25.4.2006.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's claims have been considered and disposed of by the respondents in terms of the directions issued by this Court and arrears have also been paid to him, no further action is required to be taken in these proceedings which are accordingly dropped, with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the speaking order and/or a part thereof, if so advised.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

August 04, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.