IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1608 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 28, 2011. Arun Kumar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering on contract basis by the respondent- University vide appointment letter dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) till 30.4.2011. His grievance is that without passing and/or communicating any formal order, the respondent-University has not allowed the petitioner to work w.e.f. 5.10.2010 and has not released his salary also for the period for which he actually worked. It is further alleged that the petitioner has represented the respondent-University several times including vide representation dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) but neither he was allowed to resume his duties nor his salary for the period for which he worked has been released. C.W.P.No .1608 of 2011 2 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of the appointment letter dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-2), prima-facie, it appears that the respondents are obligated to pay salary to the petitioner for the period for which he actually worked as per the agreed terms and conditions. The respondents being the public authorities, it is expected from them to communicate the reasons as to why the petitioner has not been permitted to work w.e.f. 5.10.2010 onwards when the contractual appointment was specifically upto 30.4.2011. However, without expressing any final views in relation to the issues raised, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the respondent-University to consider the above-noticed claim raised by the petitioner and release his due payments, if any, as well as communicate the reasons as to why he has not been permitted to work after 5.10.2010. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner would be still aggrieved, liberty is granted to him to approach the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 28, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE