IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7858 of 2009 Devender Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had filed this writ petition to claim the following reliefs:- i) grant the annual increments which fall due from 01.01.2007; ii) grant the revised pay scale and its arrears to the petitioner; iii)release the salary of two months i.e. July & August 2008; iv)to release the arrears of annual increments, difference of pay, salary of two months i.e. July & August, 2008 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date the same falls due till its realisation; v) to initiate departmental enquiry against respondent No. 5 under C.S. Rules in compliance of letter No. 5/28- 2008 HRG-II/21 dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure P-5) Civil Writ Petition No. 7858 of 2009 -2- issued by Commissioner & Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. It is conceded before me that the amount due on account of (i) to (iv) above has been released except that only 40% of the arrears due on account of annual increments have been released. Mr. Rathee does not dispute this fact and says that this has been uniformly done in respect of all the employees. Mr. Rathee, further submits that action is in hand to release the remaining arrears also. Counsel for the petitioner submits that 30% more arrears have further been released. Mr. Rathee says that the arrears, which are due to the petitioner on account of annual increment would be released in a due course. The counsel maintains that no action has been taken against respondent No. 4, who had acted with malice in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Mr. Rahtee on the contrary points out that the petitioner had refused to accept a cheque for Rs. 44,019/- which is now in his possession. The cheque is handed over to the counsel for the petitioner for onward handing over to the petitioner as such. The petitioner may pursue his relief regarding action against respondent No. 4 with the department. No further directions are needed in the present case. The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. August 20 , 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE