- (1.) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 478 of 1989 filed by the petitioner Major G. S. Sodhi was dismissed by our order dated 30/11/1990. Along with the said writ petition, we also dismissed another Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 525 of 1988 filed by Lt.-Col. S. K. Duggal. Major G. S. Sodhi filed Crl. MP No. 8905 of 1990 in WP (Crl. ) No. 478 of 1989 arid Lt.-Col. S. K. Duggal filed Crl. MP No. 491 of 1991 in WP (Crl. ) No. 525 of 1988 with a common prayer seeking an order for release of their provident fund, gratuity and pension. By our order dated 19-3-1991 we directed the respondent namely Union of India to pay the entire provident fund, gratuity and pension as per the rules to each of them within three months from the date of the said order. On the ground that the said order has not been complied with. Major G. S. Sodhi has filed this contempt petition.
(2.) We may mention at this stage that the Union of India filed a review petition seeking the review of the order dated 19-3-1991.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the specific orders passed by this court on 19-3-1991, the respondent has not taken any steps to pay the pension etc. and therefore the present contempt petition hasbeen filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that pending the above review petition filed by the respondent, the petitioner Major G. S. Sodhi has been paid all his retirement benefits as per the orders of this court. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the direction by this court is to pay the retirement benefits under the rules, therefore having examined the rules, the authorities concerned took the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits as a matter of right since he was dismissed from service and at any rate the petitioner having not served the period of 20 years fully, was not entitled to pensionary benefits. Reliance is placed on Regulation 25 of Pension Regulation for the Army in this regard. It is also submitted that in view of this legal position, the review petition also was filed and the authorities concerned bona fide felt that the legal position has to be clarified and reviewed regarding the payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and therefore the same has not been paid to the petitioner.;