IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 20124 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.12.2010. Dev Dutt --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This is a third round of litigation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner retired as Assistant on 30.11.2005 from the office of Estate Officer, Faridabad. On account of non-payment of interest on the delayed payments of retiral benefits petitioner filed CWP No. 178 of 2008. This petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 11.1.2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on delayed payments in accordance with law. Consequent upon the aforesaid direction, the respondents calculated the interest and paid interest @ 12% as claimed by the petitioner from the date of commencement of pension i.e. From 1.12.2005 to the date of release of arrears of pension and commutation i.e. 6.12.2007 amounting to Rs. 78,842/-. It seems that the petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of interest and filed another writ petition being CWP No. 9450 of 2009 before this Court. This petition was, however, withdrawn with liberty to avail the other remedy in accordance with law as is evident from order dated 2.7.2009. The petitioner, thereafter initiated contempt proceedings through the medium of CWP. No. 20124 of 2009 -2- COCP No. 1734 of 2009. The Contempt Court vide order dated 5.10.2009 dismissed the contempt petition holding that no contempt is made out in view of the award of the interest by the respondents. Now the petitioner has filed this 3rd petition again claiming the interest. Admittedly, the petitioner has been awarded interest and he withdrew the 2nd writ petition, wherein he claimed interest allegedly on some other retiral benefits. This Court permitted the petitioner to avail any other remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner availed the remedy of contempt and the Contempt Court held that no contempt is made out. If, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Contempt Court, he should have challenged the said order in appropriate proceedings, that having not been done, this petition for the same relief is not maintainable. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.12.2010. lucky