High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25085/2014disposed of

Mahavir Parsad v. Director Urban Local Bodies Haryana & ORS

2016-02-17Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CWP No. 25085 of 2014 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 25085 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.02.2016 Mahavir Parsad ....Petitioner

Versus

Director Urban Local Bodies Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Pulkit Dagar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate along with Mr. Ravinder Singh, Secretary Municipal Committee, Ganaur.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has clarified today that as per letter dated 17.02.1997 an amount of `28,680/- was sent to the Directorate, which was accepted then vide letter dated 11.03.1997 and the petitioner name was figured at Serial No.5 in the list. Hence, this amount is not to be deposited by respondent No.3 to the Bank (respondent Nos.4 and NARESH KUMAR 2016.02.23 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 25085 of 2014 (O&M) -25) for any adjustment of provident fund amount lying to the Bank of the petitioner. The dispute with regard to adjustment of the amount of `17,000/- taken by the petitioner has now been resolved, as now Mr. Ahuja has sought clarification from the department and states that `34000/- was deposited in the year 1996 with the Bank and as per calculating the rate of interest on deposit of amount of `34,000/-, the amount comes to `36,750/. Thus, after making adjustment of `2,750/- from `2,50,850/-, the remaining amount shall be released to the Municipal Committee, Ghanaur within 15 days and thereafter the Municipal Committee, Ghanaur will transfer to the Municipal Council/Corporation, Sonepat in the next 15 days. Further respondent No.2 will release the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner had retired on 31.12.

2011 and the amount of provident fund has not been paid to him till date. The clarification with regard to deposit of `34,000/- could have been initiated by the respondent No.3 with the Bank at the time of his retirement, which has not been done in this case.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of. February 17, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE NARESH KUMAR 2016.02.23 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh