K.G.Puri, Supdt. Grade-I v. The Director Sports Punjab And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18016-2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 K.G. Puri, Supdt. Grade-I

...Petitioner

Versus

The Director Sports Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on payment of revised pension, commutation and DCRG etc.

2.

Learned State counsel makes a reference to the written statement dated 04.09.2001 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had to exercise option to adopt revised pay scale within three months, which he did on 06.04.1998, Annexure R-1, as the said scales came into force vide notification dated 16.01.1998, whereafter his pay was fixed within 22 days thereof on 28.04.1998. The delay that the petitioner is calculating was from 01.10.1996 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.09.1996, which in view of the above is misconceived. Thereafter, the case for revision of DCRG and pension was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, Punjab on 05.08.1998, who issued the certificate and reports on 18.02.1999 and sanctioned the amount of Rs.79, 777/-, within 16 days thereof on 04.03.1999, Annexures RIV and V. Thus, there is no delay with regard to the above as well. The HAMANT 2025.07.03 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18016-2000 (O&M) -2instructions for enhancing the entitlement of leave encashment to 300 days on this revised scale, were also issued on 13.05.1998, sanction whereof was granted on 30.07.1998, amounts to Rs.46,280/-, which was withdrawn on 19.08.1998 and the petitioner was informed regarding the same but he received the payment only on 02.09.1998. Thus, additional pensionary benefits became due only after he had opted on 06.04.1998. 3.

To the aforesaid facts, there was no rebuttal made by filing any replication.

4.

Disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it revived, by demonstrating that the lis still survives. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No HAMANT 2025.07.03 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document