IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.22464 of 2010 Date of Decision:25.11.2011 Ravinder Kumar Malik .....Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- None for the petitioner. Ms. Gaganpreet, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that notice of motion was issued to the extent that the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits and he is entitled to provident fund, leave encashment, insurance and gratuity. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been released provident fund, insurance and gratuity and the petitioner is not entitled for leave encashment but it has been wrongly mentioned that he is entitled for leave encashment. Learned counsel, on the basis of reply, further submits that as per Rule 23 of the LIC of India Pension Rules, 1995, resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from service of the Corporation shall entail forfeiture of his entire service and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for other benefits like leave encashment. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5, the present petition has become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous. However, in case, the petitioner is still aggrieved by action of the respondents with regard to non-payment of any other benefit, he is at liberty to approach the authorities. November 25, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE