CWP No.17895 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17895 of 2002 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Karnail Singh ...Petitioner vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Ajaib Singh, Advocate, for PSEB. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the respondents seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of commutation of pension as applicable to the petitioner. It was further prayed that the benefit of arrears on account of increments be also given and further for directing the respondents to give the promotion to the petitioner from the date, his juniors were promoted along with all consequential benefits and that his salary may be fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn. The instant writ petition was disposed of on November 12,2002 by this Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follow:- “In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by making observation that the present writ petition be considered as a detailed representation of the petitioner and the same shall be disposed of by the respondents according to rules and regulations, within three months from the receipt of the copy of the order and the copy of the writ petition. We also give directions that if the petitioner is entitled to any relief as per the contentions and pleas, raised in the writ petition, the same shall CWP No.17895 of 2002 2 be released to him according to law and regulations. Copy of the order Dasti.” It appears that thereafter the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was tagged along with Civil Appeal No.8306 of 2006 and other connected matters titled as Bhakra Beas Management Board and others v. Hari Chand etc. The aforesaid Civil Appeal and connected matters were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2009. The relevant portion of this order reads as under:- “ Learned counsel points out that those questions have not been considered by the High Court which has merely proceeded on the basis of law laid down in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab. In spite of the repeated calls, nobody appears on the other side to dispute those questions. Therefore, we have seen the counter filed by the respondent. The counter does not take the case of the respondent any further. We are,therefore, of the opinion that this case should be remanded for re-consideration to the High Court in the light of the observation made by us, but without being influenced by any of the observations made by us. The High Court is requested to go into the Rules as well as the amendments afresh and decide the questions involved. Since the question relates to the employees who are old and retired, the High Court shall give fresh notice to the parties and dispose of the matters within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.” In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, notice was issued to both the parties vide order dated 22.9.2010. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Shri Ajaib Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that after the filing of the instant writ petition, the petitioner CWP No.17895 of 2002 3 has also filed CWP No.20178 of 2003 which was allowed on 12.1.2006. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 3.5.2002 (Annexure P1) is quashed to the extent that that the petitioner has been denied the monetary benefits on the promoted post of Internal Auditor from the deemed date of his promotion i.e.30.8.1995 and has been granted arrears from the date he actually started work i.e. 9.3.2000 as Internal Auditor. The respondents shall grant necessary arrears and financial benefits on the post of Internal Auditor from the date the petitioner was granted the deemed date of promotion i.e.30.8.1995 and shall also grant the other consequntial benefits that accrue to him on account of the grant of financial benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The necessary arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order”. Shri Ajaib Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of PSEB has also placed on record details of the amount paid to the petitioner and according to him all the benefits accruing to the petitioner have already been released and nothing survive in this petition. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the aforesaid payments/dues to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 29, 2011 rk