High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Kumar Son Of Durga Dass vs Ramesh Inder Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kumar Son Of Durga Dass vs Ramesh Inder Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009
COCP No. 719 of 2009                           1

        In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                  ...

COCP No. 719 of 2009

Date of decision: July 29, 2009

Narinder Kumar son of Durga Dass
..Petitioner.

Versus

Ramesh Inder Singh and others

..Respondent

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva,Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms. Leesa Gill, Advocate
with Mr. Jaspal Singh, respondent No.4

..

Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral)

C.M.No.17359-CII of 2009

C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

C.M.No.17360-CII of 2009

C.M. is allowed. Short affidavit of Jaspal Singh, respondent No.4 is

taken on the record.

COCP No. 719 of 2009

In the reply filed by respondent No.4, it has been submitted that in

compliance of the orders passed by this Court, a Demand Draft of Rs. 3,50,000/-

dated 10.6.2009 on account of gratuity is being paid to the petitioner. It has also

been mentioned in the reply that a sum of Rs. 7,32,216/- were received by the

petitioner on 13.4.2009 on account of his arrears of salary and a sum of Rs.

9,39,847.97 were paid to the petitioner on 11.12.2008 on account of Provident

Fund.

It has been further stated in the reply that on payment of this

Demand Draft of Rs. 3,50,000/- dated 10.6.2009, the account of the petitioner
COCP No. 719 of 2009 2

has been settled as all the dues have been paid.

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

disputes the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents and states that still

certain sums are due to the petitioner on account of pay revision etc.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that

the arrears on account of pay revision have not been released by the

Government of Punjab and shall be paid as and when the Government of Punjab

releases the same.

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, I am not

inclined to proceed further with this contempt petition

Rule discharged.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other remedy

in accordance with law for release of any other amount which according to him

has not been paid so far.

July 29, 2009                                             (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
           nk                                                     JUDGE