IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13835 of 2008. Date of Decision : April 05, 2010. Rakesh Kumar ...... Petitioner. Versus. Union of India and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Central Government Counsel, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court, vide order dated 06.08.2008 directed the respondents to continue providing medical aid to the petitioner and his case for discharge be not considered till further orders. Since the respondents violated the said order, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition, i.e., C.O.C.P. No. 1749 of 2008, titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus Shri V.K. Joshi and others. In the said contempt petition, counsel for respondents filed an additional affidavit of Shri E. Nirmala Raj, Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Group Centre, CRPF, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana, wherein it was stated that a sum of Rs. 6,30,720/- has been sanctioned for the treatment of the petitioner who is suffering from a chronic disease. On instructions from Shri Nissar Mohammad, Deputy Commandant, CRPF, Pinjore, counsel for respondents had stated that out of the sanctioned amount, the petitioner will be released any amount for treatment as may be requested by him from time to time. He further states that respondents had made a statement before this Court that his case for discharge will not be considered unless his medical treatment is completed. He on this basis contends that in the light of the statement made by counsel for respondents in C.W.P. No. 13835 of 2008. -2- the contempt petition, the present writ petition with regard to the claim of the petitioner has been rendered infructuous. Counsel for respondents does not dispute the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner. She states that the case of the petitioner for discharge will not be considered till he is under treatment. In view of the statement made by counsel for respondents, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has moved a representation dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure-P-10) with regard to claim of benefit under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPAIS), but no decision has been taken on the said representation till date. Counsel for respondents states that a speaking order shall be passed by respondents on consideration of the said representation within a period of eight weeks from today. This she states, on instructions from Shri Vikram Singh, D.A. (Legal), CRPF, Pinjore. In the light of the statement made by counsel for respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The respondents shall however be bound by the statement made by their counsel in the Court. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 05, 2010. sjks.