IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1267 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2009 Juj Kumar Sathi ......Petitioner(s) Versus Romila Dube & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.16360-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1267 of 2009 The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that despite the directions given by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2009 in CWP No.3092 of 2007, nothing has been done and his retiral benefits have not been settled and paid within the stipulated period despite the fact that the aforesaid order was submitted to the respondents by the petitioner personally. The case of the petitioner had come up for hearing on 17.7.2009 and considering the averments made by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner met the respondents personally and requested to release his entire service benefits along with interest as per the order dated 3.2.2009, he was asked to place on record the evidence to substantiate the aforesaid contention. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before the Court three Under Postal Cover receipts issued by the Post Office in the name of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and Assistant Commissioner COCP No.1267 of 2009(O&M) -2- (grievances) and submitted that the petitioner has sent the copy of the order dated 3.2.2009 under postal covers vide these receipts. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner today on the basis of these postal receipts is in contradiction of the contentions made by him in the contempt petition. No doubt a direction was issued to the respondents by this Court to settle the retiral benefits of the petitioner and to pay the same to him within four months. However, in the absence of any evidence on record to prove the fact that after passing the judgment dated 3.2.2009, the petitioner had ever brought this judgment to the knowledge of the respondents, it cannot be held that there was non compliance of order on the part of the respondents which may amount to willful disobedience, making them liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, keeping in view the directions issued by this Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents now to comply with the judgment dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.3092 of 2007 within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of, accordingly. August 11, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE