IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.11.2010 COCP No.1607 of 2010 (O&M) Mohammad Saleem ...Petitioner Versus M.S.Sandhu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in respect of his grievance of non-payment of pensionary benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 17.03.2010, wherein respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the writ petition were directed to redress the grievance of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. It was further ordered that if the petitioner is found entitled to any monetary and other retrial benefits, the same shall be paid as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receiving of a certified copy of the order. In terms of the said directions, the competent authority has passed an order on 14.09.2010 in which payments have been made to the petitioner on account of G.P.F., Earned Leave and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. It is also pointed out in the affidavit dated 15.09.2010 that the petitioner is not entitled to selection grade, as he has not attended the two refresher courses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the selection grade has been wrongly declined, as in terms of the UGC COCP No.1607 of 2010 (O&M) instructions, it was not necessary for the petitioner to attend the two refresher courses before grant of selection grade. The said question cannot be adjudicated upon in the contempt proceedings. Once the selection grade has been refused for the reason that the petitioner has not attended two refresher courses, it cannot be said that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. It is for the petitioner to avail his remedy to claim selection grade from an appropriate Forum. The other grievance is that the wife of the petitioner has not been sanctioned family pension in the eventuality of demise of the petitioner. In respect of the above-said grievance, suffice it to say that the Pension Payment Order covers the eventuality of death of the pensioner and entitlement of the family pension in such eventuality. In view of the above, I do not find that any case for continuing with the present contempt petition is made out. The same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as may be available to the petitioner against the non-grant of selection grade in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 10.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2