COCP No.832 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.832 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.9.2009 Lashkar Ram ......Petitioner(s) Versus Rajiv Bhatia and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate with Mr. Charanjit Singh, Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana and Mr. Baru Ram, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division I, Ministry of Finance, Jalandhar-respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.20819 to 20821-CII of 2009 Applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.20822-CII of 2009 Vide order dated 25.8.2009, the presence of respondent No.1 was ordered to be secured through bailable warrants. The aforesaid respondent is not present. However, an application has been filed on his behalf seeking exemption from his appearance on the ground that he is out of country and has not come back. It has been further submitted that he was to resume his duties on 31.8.2009, however, his leave has been extended upto 11.9.2009 on his request on a mail received from South Africa as he is ill. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact that respondent No.1 is out of the country and is not well, this application is allowed to the extent that his personal appearance is exempted for today. However, after he resumes his duty, he shall be present in Court as and when called, as COCP No.832 of 2009 (O&M) 2 undertaken by him. COCP No.832 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner retired as Deputy Office Superintendent on 31.3.1998 from the office of Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner II Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Revenue Building, Chandigarh. During his service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on account of his absence from duty and an order of punishment was passed against him. The aforesaid action of the respondent was challenged by the petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.2.2003. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed CWP No.14009-CAT- 2003 in this Court. Vide judgment dated 30.5.2008, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 26.2.2003 passed by the Tribunal and directed the respondents to redetermine the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. It was further directed that the arrears of pension shall be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. According to the petitioner, in spite of the aforesaid directions, the respondents have failed to implement the order and thus, they are liable to be punished for committing contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, a short written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed submitting that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, vide order dated 28.8.2009, the period from 30.4.1966 to 6.12.1980 has been treated as qualifying service for the grant of pension and other benefits to the petitioner and accordingly, it has been directed that pension and other benefits payable to the petitioner be determined and arrears be paid to him COCP No.832 of 2009 (O&M) 3 at the earliest. It is also averred in the written statement that the case of the petitioner was further sent to the office of Pay & Accounts Officer, Commissionerate of Customs and Central Excise,Chandigarh, who has issued the orders of revision of pension of the petitioner by treating the aforesaid period as qualifying service and the said order dated 28.8.2009 has been further sent to Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, who is the Payment Authority for all the Central Govt. employees in respect of pension. Thus, the payment of revised pension shall be paid to the petitioner shortly. Thus, according to the respondents, the order passed by this Court has been complied with. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, on instructions from Mr. Charanjit Singh, Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana, who is present in Court and is having the jurisdiction in the case of the petitioner, states that the payment of the revised pension shall be paid to the petitioner within three weeks from today. In view of the aforesaid written statement of the respondents and the assurance given by the learned counsel appearing on their behalf on instructions from Mr. Charanjit Singh, Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. However, the respondents shall be bound to release the payment of the petitioner within three weeks as aforesaid. If the aforesaid assurance given by respondent No.1 is not honoured, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revival of this contempt petition. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to COCP No.832 of 2009 (O&M) 4 seek any other remedy against the respondents for grant of any other relief to which he is entitled to in accordance with law. September 3, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE