IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20809 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Sarita Chaudhary ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Kamal Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 9.8.2011, this Court had passed the following order:- “Affidavit on behalf of the Secretary has been filed regretting delay in finalization of the proceedings, for which the payment of pension and other pensionary benefits have been unduly withheld. As per the orders now passed, the petitioner has been held responsible for some loss and recovery has been directed against her. The explanation given by the Secretary, prima-facie, cannot be accepted as in case there was delay in finalising the case, she was required to get extension of time from this court, instead of defying the undertaking. Let the Secretary file an additional affidavit to explain as to why no action was taken to seek extension of time. The counsel for the petitioner thereafter has drawn my attention to order dated 15.1.2011. In addition, the Secretary of the Department had stated that within a period of two weeks the entire exercise with regard to the case of the petitioner shall be concluded and the Civil Writ Petition No.20809 of 2008 (O&M) :2: monetary benefits, which are due to the petitioner on account of her retirement, shall be released after taking into consideration the conclusion of such proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner points out that except for provisional pension, no other retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner, especially the leave encashment. As per Mr.Rathee, only gratuity has been withheld in view of the proposed recovery. On instructions Mr.Rathee also says that leave encashment is sanctioned but not released. This will again indicate violation of the undertaking given by the Secretary. Let her explain this aspect also in the affidavit now required to be filed. All the benefits, which are due to the petitioner, must be released before the adjourned date.” The Secretary has now filed an affidavit saying that the leave encashment has been sanctioned and deposited in the account of the petitioner by way of a bank draft. As per this affidavit, except gratuity and the final pension everything has been disbursed. These amounts will also be disbursed after adjusting the recovery and other penalties imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 5.8.2011 on the basis of disciplinary proceedings held under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 read with Rule 2.2(b) of The Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II as applicable to Haryana. Not only that, The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary has also conceded that there was a lapse on her part as she did not seek extension of time despite having given an undertaking before this court. The Secretary accordingly has expressed her unqualified apology and assured the court that such a mistake would not reoccur in future. The petitioner, if aggrieved against any non-release of pension or other benefits, will have to separately challenge that order. No case for further direction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. September 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE