IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1828 of 2009 Date of decision:- 14.12.2009. Paranjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Kulbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(Oral) In response to show-cause notice, issued by this Court, an affidavit of Sarabjit Singh Sindhu, Executive Engineer, Central Works Division No.2, Punjab PWD B & R, Batala Road, PWD Complex, Amritsar, has been filed, wherein it has been submitted as under:- “That it is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the above said orders of this Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner has been reinstated in the service by the respondent No.3 vide office order No.112 dated 27.10.2009 and the petitioner joined the department on 29.10.2009. True copies of the reinstatement order and the joining report are enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1 and R-2 respectively. It is pertinent to mention here that an amount of Rs.984262/- has been worked out as consequential benefits including monetary benefits w.e.f. 30.8.2004 to 28.10.2009 after allowing him annual increments and the payment of Rs.779005/- has been made to the petitioner vide Cheque No.954303 dated 30.10.2009 of IDBI Bank after deducting income tax. True copies of the Bill/receipt and Schedule of income tax deduction are attached herewith as Annexure R-3 and R-4 respectively. In this way, the order of the Hon'ble COCP No. 1828 of 2009 -2- High Court has been fully complied with. If there is a delay in compliance of the order, the same has been caused due to departmental procedure for which the deponent seeks unconditional apology.” However, learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the stand of the respondents and has stated that consequential benefits flowing from the order passed by the respondents are yet to be paid. But keeping in view of the reply filed, this court is not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. However, the consequential benefits, which have remained unpaid, as alleged by the petitioner, he may make a representation to the respondents within three weeks from today and if any such representation is filed, the same shall be decided within one month thereafter in accordance with law. Needless to say if any other benefit is found due, the same shall be paid to him forthwith and if the claim of the petitioner is rejected, he shall be communicated with the order. December 14, 2009 ( Rakesh Kumar Garg ) vj Judge