IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1404 of 2007 Date of decision: May 15, 2008. Santokh Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Sarabjit Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. Present: Shri Arvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sushant Batish, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 3. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-III with the Food Corporation of India (FCI). In terms of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced by the FCI, he applied and upon acceptance, was retired voluntarily. However, even before he could be actually retired, the petitioner withdrew his request but the said request having not been acceded to, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.638 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.3.2006 allowed the petitioner's writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in CWP No.1598 of 2005 (Gurcharan Singh v. FCI & Ors.). In Gurcharan Singh's case, this Court had quashed the order retiring the writ petitioner voluntarily despite withdrawal of his request for such retirement and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner, thus, got the same relief. The above stated judgment was upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 8.8.2007 and, thus, has attained finality. These contempt proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the above mentioned judgment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has since been reinstated in service on 11.10.2007. As regards to monetary benefits, it is the admitted case that during the pendency of his writ petition, the petitioner was paid VRS compensation amounting to Rs.4,59,987/-, gratuity amounting to Rs.1,81,973/-, EL encashment amounting to Rs.27,785/- and CPF (90% payment) amounting to Rs.2,98,000/-, i.e., total amounting to Rs.9,67,745/-. Shri D.V. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, states that upon reinstatement with consequential benefits, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,02,052/- towards salary with effect from 1.1.2005 till 31.3.2008. According to him, after adjusting the above stated amount towards the total payment made to the petitioner upon VRS, the petitioner is liable to refund a sum of Rs.5,65,493/-. As may be seen from the above given details, the petitioner undoubtedly is liable to refund the VRS compensation received by him from the respondents. Similarly, the benefit of EL Encashment can also be claimed by him on his retirement only. As far as the gratuity and CPF amounts are concerned, these are petitioner's own money earned by him during the course of service and, thus, there appears to be no legal necessity for the respondents to insist upon the refund thereof by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, contends that if the petitioner commits any financial irregularity/misappropriation/ embezzlement while in service, the Corporation will not be able to make good the losses unless the gratuity amount already paid to the petitioner is directed to be refunded to it. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, however, states that firstly the apprehension expressed by the respondents is totally imaginary and has no basis as no charge-sheet or complaint is pending inquiry against him. Secondly, he undertakes that if any such event happens in future, the respondents shall be entitled to adjust and/or make the losses good from his other retiral benefits, including the arrears/commutation of pension. The aforesaid undertaking is a sufficient guard to the apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondents. Consequently, having regard to the fact that the respondents have substantially complied with the orders passed by this Court and have no intention to willfully or deliberately disobey the same, this contempt petition is disposed of with a clarificatory direction that as soon as the amounts of VRS compensation, i.e., Rs.4,59,987/- and EL encashment of Rs.27,795/-, i.e., total Rs.4,87,782/- is refunded by the petitioner to the Corporation by way of adjustment of the arrears of his pay, the respondents shall start paying full emoluments to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner shall, however, abide by the undertaking given above. Disposed of. Rule discharged. May 15, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge