IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.169 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 04.02.2008 Vijay Pal Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate vs. Sh.R.S.Gujral, IAS & ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for Mr.Chetan Mittal, Advocate for No.4. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner filed C.W.P.No.16959 of 2006 seeking a direction for the release of his withheld retiral benefits. He also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The above-stated writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2006 with a direction to the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice already served by the petitioner upon them and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Non-compliance of the aforementioned order has led to initiation of these contempt proceedings. In response to the show cause notice, reply/affidavits have been filed by respondents No. 2 and 4. Along with his reply/affidavit, the second C.O.C.P. No.169 of 2007 -2- respondent has also appended a speaking order dated 11.4.2007 (Annexure R-1) which indicates that a sum of Rs.63066/- was allegedly paid to the petitioner in excess on account of wrong pay scale given to him by the Management at their own level. The said excess payment was pointed out by the department while sending his case for pension to the Accountant General, Haryana. As a result of the aforesaid objection, an amount of Rs.89,296/- is stated to have been deducted from the petitioner's gratuity, as has been explained by respondent No.4 in his reply/affidavit. In these circumstances, the question arises as to whether the petitioner was paid in excess by granting a higher pay scale. This issue could not have been resolved against the petitioner by the respondents behind his back as an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, however, points out that show cause notice has been sent to the petitioner twice but no reply thereto has been filed. Be that as it may, in the light of the controversy noticed above, this petition is disposed of with a clarificatory direction to respondent No.4 to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner explaining as to how the petitioner's pay was wrongly fixed. The aforesaid notice may be sent at the petitioner's permanent address. The petitioner shall submit his reply to the said show cause notice within a period of one month from the date it is received. The Management thereafter shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of said reply. If the petitioner's claim is accepted, in that event, the withheld amount shall be released in his favour along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. C.O.C.P. No.169 of 2007 -3- However, if the Management holds that the benefit of higher pay scale was erroneously granted to the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner, if so advised, may impugn the said order before an appropriate forum. Rule discharged. February 04, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE