CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12451 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2011 Hukam Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking direction for the respondents to revise his pension as per the Government instructions and also for release of all the arrears of pension alongwith 18% interest. The petitioner, who retired from service on 30.6.1995, has approached this Court for revision of his pension on the basis of instructions, Annexure P-2, dated 12.9.2007. Before making the present approach, the petitioner had served a legal notice and due to non-action of the respondents, he has filed the present writ petition. Notice was issued and reply has been filed. It is disclosed that the petitioner was drawing basic pay of `4000/- + special pay of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12451 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: `400/- in the pay scale of `3000-5000+`400/- special pay. The petitioner had qualifying service of 31 years 5 months 20 days and accordingly his pension was fixed as `2089/-. The prayer made by the petitioner that he is entitled to 50% of pension of his basic pay is disputed by making reference to the fact that this pension would be payable to the petitioner if he had rendered 33 years of qualifying service. In this regard, reference is made to Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II. Otherwise also, it is disclosed that the pension of the petitioner has now been revised to `5774/- with effect from 1.1.1996. In the reply, rather, an allegation of misleading this Court to the effect that his pension has not been revised, is made against the petitioner. The fact that pension of the petitioner has been revised, has not been seriously disputed. Counsel for the petitioner, however, says that the petitioner still has a grievance and can substantiate his claim that he would be entitled to 50% of the pension of his basic pay. If the petitioner is still aggrieved against the revision of his pension or the quantum thereof, he may file a representation, giving detailed reasons. If he does that, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. August 3, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE