IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 7440 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.4.2010. Rishi Parkash --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner joined the duties in the State of Haryana as a Patwari on 24.11.1984 and earned promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar. While working as a Naib Tehsildar in Rohtak, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 and an inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner vide the inquiry report dated 3.11.2005. The disciplinary authority, however, served a memo dated 31.8.2007 to show cause as to why 10% of cut in the pension be not imposed upon the petitioner. After consideration of the reply of the petitioner and affording him an opportunity of being heard, the Commissioner vide his order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) dropped the show cause notice CWP. No. 7440 of 2010 -2- regarding imposition of 10% cut in pension and ordered the release of all retiral benefits i.e full pension and gratuity etc. in favour of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid order the pensionary benefits have not been released in favour of the petitioner. It is, however, admitted position that in a criminal case filed against the petitioner under Section 7 and 13 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the petitioner was convicted under Sections 217, 218, 418, 120-B IPC. Though, he was acquitted under Section 13 (I) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal against the conviction is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the observations of the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana his pension/retiral benefits have not been released. Even the provisional pension has not been paid. The petitioner served two representations dated 4.2.2008 and 11.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) and also served a legal notice (Annexure P-6) but respondents have not taken any decision thereon till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, respondents are directed to take decision on the representations/legal notice served by the petitioner in the light of the observations of the disciplinary authority. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take decision on the representations/legal notice served by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 27.4.2010. lucky