COCP No. 56 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 56 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.8.2010 Tarsem Lal Jain .....Petitioner Versus Balraj Bhasin and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Shri A.K. Kalsy, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri M.C. Berry, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) This Court on 8.5.2009 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It was ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to 75% of the subsistence allowance in the revised pay scale and admissible allowances. The balance amount was ordered to be released within a period of four months. The grievance of the petitioner was that such directions have not been complied with. In pursuance of the notice issued in the present contempt petition, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sukhwinder Singh, Director Public Instruction (Secondary Education), Punjab dated 11.3.2010, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was COCP No. 56 of 2010 (O&M) [2] found entitled to 9,64,763/- as subsistence allowance @ 50% with effect from 6.5.1995 to 5.11.1995 and 75% with effect from 6.11.1995 to 27.12.2002 in the revised pay scale and admissible allowance with effect from 1.1.1996. An amount of Rs.4,35,229/- was already paid to the petitioner in unrevised pay scale and the balance has now been paid to the petitioner i.e. 95% vide draft dated 18.2.2010 and the balance 5% vide draft dated 5.9.2009. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the benefit of increments and other admissible allowances has not been granted to the petitioner. From the perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it cannot be made out that the petitioner has not been granted any increments during the period, the petitioner was under suspension. If the petitioner has not been granted increments or any other allowance as may be admissible, it shall be open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents by giving detailed facts, which shall be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law. No further orders are called for in the present petition. Dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 16.8.2010 ds COCP No. 56 of 2010 (O&M) [3]