IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1021 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: November 10, 2009. Umar s/o Budhi ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Satya Bhan ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Onkar Singh, Advocate, for Shri Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Dilbag Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, vide judgment dated 5.9.2005 passed in CWP No.11783 of 2003, the respondents were directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.2.1996. The petitioner was also held entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of the said regularization. The petitioner filed COCP No.1689 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court with a clarificatory direction that the consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of pay, if any, be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the aforesaid order. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed this petition alleging non- compliance of the order dated 11.2.2008 passed by this Court in COCP No.1689 of 2006. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, separate affidavits on behalf of Satya Bhan, Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Panchkula and Dr. D. Hembram, IFS, Divisional Forest Officer, Mewat have been filed. In the reply filed on behalf of these respondents, it has been submitted that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in COCP No.1689 of 2006, all the monetary benefits of the petitioner flowing from the aforesaid orders passed by this Court have been paid to him. However, the aforesaid submission of the respondents is disputed. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the respondents have passed orders Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 making payment of the arrears of the petitioner on account of the benefits available to him, I am not inclined to proceed further in this case. Rule discharged. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may seek any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. November 10, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge