C.O.C.P.No.1237 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P.No.1237 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 19.01.2010 Khalid Mehmood & others ....Appellants Versus Mrs. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C.Berry, Addl. A.G.,Punjab, for the respondent-State RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Prayer in this contempt petition is to punish the respondents for their wilfull disobedience of the order dated 07.02.2008 passed in C.O.C.P.No.1232 of 2007 in CWP No.6236 of 2007. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by order dated 07.02.2008, the respondents were directed to release monetary benefits, to the petitioners, in terms of the revised seniority list. Apart from the petitioners in the contempt petition, all other petitioners in the writ petition have been paid monetary benefits. The order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the Director, Public Instructions (SE), Punjab, that the petitioners are not entitled to monetary benefits as the pay fixation is notional is a mere eye wash. The assertion that benefits granted to the other petitioners in the writ petition have been withdrawn is irrelevant as the order for recovery has been stayed in another writ petition. Counsel for the respondents admits that out of 83 petitioners in the writ petition, 49 petitioners were paid monetary benefits, but states that C.O.C.P.No.1237 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the payment was inadvertent and when this error was brought to the notice of the authorities, the orders were withdrawn and, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the concerned drawing and disbursing officers. The argument by counsel for the petitioners that monetary benefits cannot be denied to them or that the order dated 03.08.2009 is a mere eye wash cannot, therefore, be accepted. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the order dated 07.02.2008 and the order dated 03.08.2009, passed by the Director, Public Instructions (SE) Punjab. Pursuant to order dated 07.02.2008, the respondents were directed to pay monetary benefits to the petitioners, if entitled. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to monetary benefits as seniority and pay fixation from a back date, is notional. The monetary relief granted to other teachers who were party in the original writ petition have been withdrawn and orders have been passed for recovery of these amounts. In addition, disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the drawing and disbursing officers. The validity of the orders of recovery are pending adjudication in a writ petition. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of contempt. As a result, the rule is discharged, and the present petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the legality of the order dated 03.08.2009, in accordance with law. This order shall not be construbed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the rights of the parties. January 19, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE