Kashmir Singh Vs Suresh Kumar and Others

Counsel for the petitioner has admitted that a sum of Rs.1,81,165/- has been transferred in the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish the statement regarding the amount, which remains to be released by the respondent-authorities.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the retiral benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to, have not been considered properly vide Annexure R-1. He has brought to the notice of this court one letter dated 16.9.2013, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to the pension and is also entitled to some amount, already deposited towards earlier CPF scheme. Order Annexure R-1 indicates that the directions passed by this court vide order dated 19.4.2012 have been complied with. In case the petitioner is dissatisfied with any calculation or the order Annexure R-1, it will be open to him to avail the legal remedy open to him. The petitioner may comply with the terms of letter dated 16.9.2013 to get the release of any other benefit, not released to him.

¶12

The contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶13

October 21 ,2013 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) TSM JUDGE

¶14

Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.10.22 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Kashmir Singh v. Suresh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Singh v. Suresh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranbir Singh Vs Krishan Kumar

Baldev Singh Vs Uma Shankar and Anr.

Keshav Ram & Ors. Vs Registrar Coop Society Panchkula & Ors.

Tejpal Singh Vs Raj Kamal Choudhary and Ors.

Kamlesh Vs Shashi Kant Sharma, Secretary Ministry of Defence, N.Delhi

Hoshiar Singh Siwach Vs State of Haryana & Ors.