ORDER : 1. The petitioner had approached this Court with a writ petition being SWP no. 2398/2018 aggrieved of the fact that upon his retirement from service as ‘Motorman’ from the Public Health Engineering Department, the petitioner’s pension case is not being settled as well as the payment of gratuity was not taking place. The retirement of the petitioner came to take place in the year 2018 and the writ petition also came to be filed soon after in the year 2018 itself. 2. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of without entering upon the merits of the writ petition by virtue of an order dated 20.11.2018 with the following direction:- “In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of at the threshold by directing the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 4 & 5, to consider and finally settle the claim of the petitioner for pension as well the retiral benefits within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order along with the copy of the writ petition is made available to them. The respondents shall do so in accordance with rules governing the field, while keeping into consideration the judgments rendered in the petitions being SWP Nos. 2389/2014 & 1174/2013 and judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. V. Rafiq Masih.” 3. The petitioner came forward with the institution of the present writ petition saying that the writ-respondents have not acted in conformity with the direction of the writ court which intended the settlement of the pension case of the petitioner as well as payment of gratuity within time given. 4. It appears that the bottle-neck came to be the benefit accorded in favour of the petitioner in terms of SRO-59, which as per the employer, was not entitled to be granted in favour of the petitioner and, as such, the last drawn pay of the petitioner based upon the benefit of SRO-59 was misconceived and, therefore, the pecuniary benefit of SRO-59 afforded to the petitioner was intended to be recovered from the petitioner before settlement of his pension case. 5. 5. During the pendency of this contempt petition, this Court, in terms of an order dated 06.03.2024 in para 5, came to make a very categoric reference to the mandate of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih” reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 which states that no recovery can be effected from the dues payable to a pensioner if his pay has been wrongly fixed during his service tenure on account of a reason not attributable to him. 6. In terms of an order dated 06.03.2024, this Court called upon the contemnors/respondents in the contempt petition to file a fresh Statement of Facts/Compliance report. 7. In the contempt petition, there are three respondents. Respondent No. 3 is the Accountant General (AG), Jammu who came forward with a purported compliance report dated 12.04.2024 accompanied with annexures, one of which being a communication no. PNRJ-II/S-3/2023-24/1664 dated 27.03.2024 addressed to the Commissioner/Secretary, PHE Department, Govt. of UT of Jammu & Kashmir. In this communication, the Accountant General (AG), Jammu is meaning to say that there has been no response from the petitioner’s DDO with respect to two aspects, firstly with respect to the recovery of excess amount of Rs.5,48,254/- and secondly whether the pension is to be revised/DC<>?RG and communication is to be authorized after giving the benefit of SRO-59, but there is no reply received from the end of the DDO. 8. Contrary to the recital made in the communication above referred, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, has come forward with a communication no. JSPHEMK/9115-185 dated 23.02.2024 addressed to the Accountant General J&K, UT (Jammu) in response to the aforementioned communication as referred the communication dated 27.03.2024 from the end of the Accountant General meaning thereby the latest compliance report so filed from the end of the Accountant General – respondent No. 3 is not in sync with the true state of facts attending to the position taken as by Jal Shakti, PHE Mechanical Division, Kathua as being DDO. 9. In the Communication No. JSPHEMK/9115-185 dated 23.02.2024 which is taken on record upon its production by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, there is a mention that the pensionary benefits so authorized in favour of the petitioner by the Accountant General vide PPO No. 1120113801 is without the benefit of SRO-59. 10. 9. In the Communication No. JSPHEMK/9115-185 dated 23.02.2024 which is taken on record upon its production by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, there is a mention that the pensionary benefits so authorized in favour of the petitioner by the Accountant General vide PPO No. 1120113801 is without the benefit of SRO-59. 10. In the light of the fact that vide Circular No. A/Codes/Pension/2020-166 dated 11.02.2021 and SO-129 dated 28.03.2022 of the Finance Department, the Government came to disallow the benefits of SRO-59, there can’t be any dispute to the fact that the recovery from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits cannot be effected on the pretext of wrongful extension of benefits under SRO-59. However, the point in issue is as to fixation of the pay of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits whether it is to take place by including the benefits of SRO-59 or by excluding it. 11. The mandate of the writ court judgment is not to the effect that the benefit of SRO-59 is to be extended to the petitioner. The mandate of the writ court judgment is to fix the pension of the petitioner which has so far not taken place leaving the petitioner in search of his settled pension for the last more than 4 years in running. 12. This contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents herein to settle the pension case of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be well within his rights to approach this Court again seeking revival of this contempt petition against the contemnors/respondents whomsoever may be officiating in the position as Chief Engineer PHE, Executive Engineer PHE and the Accountant General, J&K (Jammu).