High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11893/2017disposed of

Shobha Ram v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2019-01-30Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 30.01.2019 Shobha Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Puri Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, Pb. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In compliance of order dated 14.01.2019, an additional affidavit of Sh. Surinder Mohan, Financial Adviser-cum-Chief Accounts Officer, (FA&CAO) Ranjit Sagar Dam Shahpurkandi Township, Tehsil and District Pathankot has been filed today in the Court and the same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to counsel for the respondent.

In the said affidavit, the respondents have clearly stated that the benefits for which the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner, have already been released to the petitioner and even the arrears have already been paid to him. The relevant paragraphs No.3 and 4 of the affidavit is as under:-

-2- "3.

That the pay of the petitioner has been re-fixed by restoring of 4 No. special increment in term of the order dated 1607-2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, SLP(C) No.13027 of 2011 titled State of Punjab Vs Tarlok Chand and others.

That the revised pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned by Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh vide his letter No.Pen-12/S-56/2008-09/6586-89 dated 01-02-2018 and raised his basic pension from Rs.3945/- to Rs.4067/- accordingly the revised leave encashment Rs.26160-00 and revised DCRG amounting to Rs.4381-00 has been paid to the petitioner through saving bank account No.30253735716 (State Bank of India, Naduan, H.P.)."

In view of the above, the relief for which the present writ petition was filed has already been extended to the petitioner and the same has been even admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled for the interest on this delayed payment as well. He states that a liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach the respondents by filing appropriate representation for the grant of the interest. In case any representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today claiming the interest on the delayed release of the payment, the same shall be decided by the respondents by passing an appropriate speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of any such representation. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefits, the same should also be released to him within a period of next three months.

-3It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and the claim being made in the present writ petition or the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the respondents.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) January 30, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?