IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3673-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: May 12, 2010 Miss Gursimrat Kaur Sandhu ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Cheema, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 14.12.2007 (P-5), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 554- PB-2008, dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. On 21.4.2010, the matter was heard at length and we have suggested the parties to reach some amicable settlement. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was asked to obtain instructions as to whether a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- would be acceptable to them. At the hearing, Mr. M.S. Cheema, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 after receiving letter dated 28.4.2010 from the General Manager, Ordnance Cable Factory, Chandigarh, which has been signed on his behalf by CWP No. 3673-CAT of 2010 Ms. Usha Kiran, Assistant Works Manager/A&S, has stated that the amount of Rs. 60,000/- to be paid in lump sum by the petitioner is acceptable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The aforementioned letter dated 28.4.2010 is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. Mr. Gurnam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pointed out that there is contribution made by the petitioner to the provident fund and matching contribution has also been made by the respondent department. We make it clear that the payment of Rs. 60,000/- has got nothing to do with the entitlement of the petitioner to her claim for the provident fund. The same shall be paid to her as per rules. The amount of Rs. 60,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner within two months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2