IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.133 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 18.1.2008 Gurpal Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.N.L.Shammi, Advocate vs. Sh.Vineet Garg ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional A.G. Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner filed C.W.P.No.11307 of 2003 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.1.2005 with a direction to the Authorities concerned to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 1.1.1998. Non-implementation of the aforesaid direction prompted the petitioner to file C.O.C.P.No.1302 of 2005. Upon issuance of show cause notice, the then Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial Jurisdiction, Kurukshetra filed a reply/affidavit along with an order dated 23.2.2005 whereby services of the petitioner, as directed by this Court, were regularized with effect from 1.1.1998. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that by that time, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from C.O.C.P. No.133 of 2007 -2- 31.1.2002. It was in this backdrop that the contempt petition was disposed of after recording statement of the learned State Counsel whereby he undertook “that the post retiral benefits including pension shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two months.” Alleging inter alia that no pension is being released to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioner has filed the second contempt petition. In reply to the show cause notice, Vineet Garg, IFS, Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Department of Conservation of Forest, Haryana has filed his reply/affidavit and in para 4 thereof, he has taken the plea that while all other retiral benefits as may be admissible have been paid to the petitioner, he does not have the qualifying service of pension as the petitioner served on regular basis for a period of four years and one month only whereas the qualifying service as provided under the Rules is 10 years. It may be true that the petitioner's contention that the service rendered by him prior to regularization of services is also liable to be included towards total service for pension, however, no such relief having been granted by the writ Court vide order dated 4.1.2005, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately failed to honour the undertaking given before this Court. No case to continue with these proceedings is, therefore, made out. The same is accordingly dismissed. The rule is discharged, however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances before an appropriate forum, if so advised. January 18, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE