IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 63 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : January 17, 2011 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants Versus Mohinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the interlocutory order dated 13.1.2011. The petitioner-respondent had appeared in person. The learned Single Judge has noticed his failing health. Accordingly, an exception has been carved out in the case of the writ petitioner-respondent that instead of paying arrears in installment as per the provisions of one or the other circular, the arrears be paid in one go. The learned Single Judge is conscious of the fact that the order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand and it was not to be applicable to every other case. 2. Having heard learned State counsel, we are of the view that LPA No. 63 of 2011(O&M) -2- no case is made out to interfere in the interlocutory order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. If in a particular case, the learned Single Judge has reached the conclusion that on account of precarious health condition of a pensioner, he cannot wait for the payment of pensionary benefits by way of installments then on equitable basis issuance of direction for payment would not be prohibited. We find nothing illegal if the learned Single Judge has directed the payment to be made in one go. In equity such like orders are sometime passed by the Courts and the State shall not unnecessarily drag the pensioner in a litigation. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S.MANN ) January 17, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I