IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12114 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.9.2008 Surjit Chand ......Petitioner Versus PSEB and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Harjot Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the respondents. 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? M.M.Kumar, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to complete his service book, make the payment of medical reimbursement and grant compensation due to injuries suffered by him while on duty along with a prayer for grant of higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that the medical bills for the expenses incurred by him have not been received in the Board and; as and when the medical bills or the duplicate medical bills are presented, the same shall be sanctioned and payment will be made accordingly. Mr. Thiara, learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of averments made in para 8 of the written statement has further stated that the higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of sentence has already been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.4.2002 and the medical leave has also been sanctioned. The CWP No.12114 of 2007 -2- arrears amounting to Rs.9493/- have already been paid vide cheque dated 4.3.2008. The period during which the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital, has been treated as duty period and the absent period from 11.2.2005 to 3.5.2005 (82 days) and 9.9.2005 to 9.11.2005 (62 days) will be treated as sanctioned leave when an application to that effect is submitted by the petitioner. With regard to compensation on account of permanent disability, it has been asserted by the learned counsel that since the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability he is not entitled to any compensation and an order to that effect has been passed on 26.8.2005 (Annexure R-1). In view of the above, the grievance made by the petitioner stands redressed and the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE September 23, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE