IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 257 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 28, 2009 Bakhtawar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Ms. Harcharanjit Kaur Brar, DPI, (Schools), Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) On 11.2.2008 when the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the respondent to take a final decision on the representation submitted earlier by the petitioner by passing a speaking order on the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. According to the petitioner, the respondent had not taken any decision on his representation and, thus, he prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. Reply has been filed on behalfof the respondent in the Court today, which is taken on record and copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 3 of the same, it stands mentioned that the claim of the petitioner raised by him in his representation for counting his service, which he rendered in military, towards the qualifying service C.O.C.P. No. 257 of 2009 -2- of computing pensionary benefits in civil service has already been considered and rejected by passing an order dated 27.6.2008, which was issued on 2.7.2008. The aforementioned order has since been challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.P. No.4740 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no order was passed by the respondent on 27.6.2008, as claimed. In fact, the order was passed earlier on 27.2.2008 and endorsements were made more than four months thereafter for sending copies of the same to various officers for information and necessary action. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the copy of the aforementioned order which was received by the petitioner wherein the respondent while signing the order, had mentioned the date as 27.2.2008. The Court has seen the copy of the order dated 27.6.2008. The heading of the order shows that it had been passed on 27.6.2008. It is apparently a slip of pen when respondent, which signing the order mentioned the date as 27.2.2008, whereas order had actually been passed and signed by the respondent on 27.6.2008. In view of the above, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 28, 2009 JUDGE satish