COCP No.1484 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Hardev Singh Parmar Vs. Joginder Dass and another Date of decision: 18.08.2008. Present: Mr. KS Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mukesh Berry, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr.DV Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Exemption from personal appearance is granted. In Civil Writ Petition No.11609 of 2006, the following directions were issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2006:- “We dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to send the complete pension papers of the petitioner to respondent No.3 i.e. Distt. Education Officer (Secondary Education), Kapurthala, within a period of two weeks on receipt of certified copy of this order. It appears that the above said directions were not complied with and the petitioner moved the present contempt petition seeking implementation of the same. During the pendency of the contempt petition, COCP No.1484 of 2006 -2- various interlocutory orders came to be passed directing the respondents to implement the judgment and even, prima-facie, this Court formulated an opinion that the respondents are guilty of non-compliance of the Court's direction. However, vide order dated 01.11.2007, the Court made the following observations:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, it is apparent that in terms of the order passed by the School Tribunal, the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in the service. The suspension period has already been ordered to be counted as duty period. The said part of the order has not been stayed by the Writ Court. Therefore, the fact that the period from 29.10.1989 to 31.03.1997 has not to be treated as duty period, shows willful disobedience to the orders passed by the School Tribunal. Since the pension has not been paid after calculating the above said period, prima-facie, I am of the opinion that the such action amounts to willful disobedience to the orders passed by the Tribunal and consequently discloses a civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, before any further action is taken, an opportunity is given to the respondents to comply with the order. If the order is not complied COCP No.1484 of 2006 -3- with before the next date of hearing,the respondents shall remain present in the Court.” The respondents have filed copy of an order dated 08.08.2008 wherein it has been held that period with effect from 24.05.1995 to 30.03.1997 cannot be considered as qualifying period for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits in view of Rule 6 (2) of the Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992. The respondents have passed a speaking order specifically mentioning therein that no leave was due to the petitioner and hence this period has been treated as “extra-ordinary leave” in view of the aforesaid provisions of law. This period cannot be treated as qualifying service period for pension. Order dated 08.08.2008 has been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 28.07.2008, 01.11.2007 as also the original order dated 31.07.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period with effect from 24.05.1995 to 30.03.1997 has been wrongly excluded from the qualifying period of service of the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the consideration accorded by the respondents by a speaking order, he is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy available to him under the law. However, directions of this Court have been carried out. Nothing survives in this petition. A draft of the amount due to the petitioner, has been handed COCP No.1484 of 2006 -4- over to the learned counsel for the petitioner today in Court by Mr. Berry which is accepted by Mr.Dadwal on behalf of the petitioner under protest reserving his right in appropriate proceedings. 18.08.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE