COCP No. 1395 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1395 of 2011 Date of Decision: 5.12.2011 Surat Singh ...Petitioner Versus Arun Kumar and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner approached this Court along with other employees jointly in CWP No.18086 of 2002 which was disposed of in terms of the decision in CWP No.2476 of 1997 decided on 9.10.1997 and CWP No.12758 of 2000 decided on 29.5.2002. A copy of order dated 9.10.1997 passed in CWP No.2476 of 1997 has been appended as Annexure P-2 whereas copy of order dated 29.5.2002 passed in CWP No.12758 of 2000 has been annexed as Annexure P-3. According to the aforesaid orders, respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to opt for pensionary benefit scheme as per instructions dated 6.8.1993 but the same has not been complied with. This gave cause to the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present contempt petition. COCP No. 1395 of 2011 -2- Upon notice, separate replies on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 have been filed. In reply filed by respondents No.1 and 3, it has been stated that service period rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of release of pensionary benefits as the petitioner who retired on 31.1.2004, has been counted and the necessary amount has been released to the petitioner. Separate reply filed by respondent No.2 is taken on record in which it has been stated that though respondent No.2 was not a party to the writ petition, however, as per intimation received by him from the office of Executive Engineer Operation Division, Jind service of the petitioner has been regularised and even the pension has also been fixed. It has further been stated that closing balance in respect of the petitioner as in the year 1987-88 was Rs.5692/- (employee's share) and Rs.5692/- (employer share) and said amount of Rs.11,384/- has been paid on 24.8.1987. In view of the above, no further action is called for. The petition stands disposed of. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the legal remedy in accordance with law, if any grievance subsists. ( Ajay Kumar Mittal ) 5.12.2011 Judge Meenu