J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 18th August, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 406/2019. By way of the aforesaid judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was allowed to the extent that the petitioner herein was held entitled to be treated in service, till his actual date of superannuation. Further, the respondents were directed to fix the salary of the petitioner notionally, till the date of his actual superannuation, which would consequently, result in enhancement of pension and terminal dues.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after the passing of the aforesaid judgment dated 18th August, 2023, the petitioner had made a representation dated 21st August, 2023 to the respondents seeking the calculations with respect to the payments that were due and payable to the petitioner. He further submits that since no response was received by the petitioner to his representation dated 21st August, 2023, the present petition came to be filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the compliance affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to submit, that though the respondents have filed a compliance affidavit purportedly in terms of the directions passed by the learned Division Bench, however, the respondents have unauthorizedly made certain deductions from the pension, that had already been released to the petitioner. He, thus, submits that the said deductions could not have been made by the respondents, as there were no such directions by the learned Division Bench, for making such deductions.

4. Learned appearing for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, to contend that no deduction could have been made by the respondents from the pension, already paid to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 29th January, 2024 issued by the respondents to the petitioner, which the petitioner has attached along with his rejoinder. By referring to the aforesaid letter dated 29th January, 2024, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the said pension payment order passed by the respondents is patently illegal, as deductions have been made from the pension of the petitioner in an illegal manner, and in violation of the directions of the Division Bench.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have already complied with the directions passed by the learned Division Bench. He further submits that as per the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, the petitioner was held entitled to be treated in service, till his actual date of superannuation. Thus, he submits that the petitioner has been treated in service till the actual date of superannuation. It is submitted that for the period, when the petitioner has not been treated in service, pension has been duly released. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any pension for the period, when he has been treated to be in service, for such period. Thus, the pension that was released for the period, which has now been directed to be treated in service, has rightly been adjusted by the respondents.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that by the judgment dated 18th August, 2023 in LPA No. 406/2019, the learned Division Bench, had passed the following directions:

“xxx xxx xxx

24. While the matter was being argued, learned counsel for the appellant, has categorically stated before this Court that the appellant is not praying for back wages nor is he claiming regular salary for the period during which he was under suspension. Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal and hold that the appellant shall be entitled to be treat