D C TANWAR Vs. M R ANAND, IAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed CWP No. 6362 of 2001 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on September 15, 2003 whereby two charge-sheets served upon the petitioner were quashed and a direction was issued to the respondent-Corporation "to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner and other payments towards salary and allowances pertaining to suspension period if the same is found due within three months". Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, this contempt petition has been filed.

(2.) In response to the show cause notice, Shri Mehtab Singh, IAS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has filed his affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that leave encashment and gratuity amounting to Rs. 54,560/- and Rs. 46,800/- respectively as well as arrears of pension and commuted pension, total amounting to Rs. 4,07,769/- have already been released to the petitioner vide cheque No. 00352 dated 1.4.2004. Yet another amount of Rs. 10,649/- has also been paid to the petitioner on account of difference of commuted pension. As regards to some other monetary benefits, it has been averred that when the petitioner was posted as Purchase Officer, he took temporary advances to make the purchases but did not submit vouchers and did not get the temporary advances adjusted. An amount of Rs. 18,49,084.63 of such temporary advances is pending against the petitioner. It has also been averred that the petitioner has already filed CWP No. 6487 of 2001 claiming the pensionary benefits and in the said writ petition, the respondents have taken a defence plea based upon the alleged misappropriation of the temporary advances, referred to above. It is, thus, the plea of the respondents that whatever has been found due, has already been paid to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently contends that in view of the order dated September 15, 2003 passed by this Court, nothing can be withheld by the respondents. It is also argued by him that no decision has been taken by the respondents regarding counting of the services which the petitioner had rendered in the Municipal Committee, Palwal.