IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1157 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.9.2009 Rattan Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sh.Suresh Kumar, IAS and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Gopal Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondents have failed to disburse the entire amount including the arrears to the petitioner despite the directions dated 13.8.2008 issued in CWP No.17027 of 2006. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Sh.Rashpal Singh, Executive Engineer, Shah Nehar Head Works Division Talwara, has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the provisional pension to the petitioner has already been released and his case for regular pension was submitted to the Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, Chandigarh vide office letter No.298/PF dated 19.1.2009. However, certain objections were pointed out by the aforesaid office and the workman-petitioner was called upon to complete certain formalities and thereafter the pay of the workman-petitioner was refixed vide letter dated 19.8.2009 and according to the revised fixation of pay, the workman has received excess payment of Rs.1,15,045/- during his service. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amounting to a sum of Rs.92,697/- and COCP No.1157 of 2009 -2- the same could not be released to him in view of the fact that he has already received an excess payment amounting to Rs.1,15,045/-. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Rashpal Singh-respondent No.3, who is present in Court, states that regular pension has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and even the arrears on account of regular pension have been paid to him on 24.9.2009. In view of the aforesaid reply and the statement of respondent No.3, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order of recovery of Rs.1,15,045/- on account of excess payment and withholding of DCRG amount of Rs.92,697/- in accordance with law. September 25, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE