Neelam Rani v. State Of Punjab And ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:13.09.2017 Neelam Rani ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. B.S.Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S.Doabia, Addl.A.G.Punjab for respondents No.1and 2.

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the Provident Fund, Gratuity, leave-encashment, arrears of Dearness Allowance, arrears of seven months salary and other due retiral benefits with interest @ 12% per annum. 2.

In response to the notice having been issued, a photocopy of additional affidavit dated 06.07.2017of Sh. Baljit Singh, Executive Officer, Municipal Council Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Court today, wherein it has been stated

{2} that the entire retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner. The details of the payments made have been given in paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit which read thus:- "2 That it is respectfully submitted here in compliance with the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court, the office of the deponent has released the total retiral benefits as mentioned below:

Sr. No.

Head of Payment Amount Due Amount Paid Remarks Gratuity Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- Total retiral benefits alongwith interest @9% has been paid to Smt.

Neelam Rani Leave Encashment Rs.5,65,920/- Rs.5,65,920/ PF Rs.2,65,490/- Rs.2,65,490/- Salary from July 2016 to September 2016 Rs.1,73,163/- Rs.1,73,163/- Interest @ 9% on delayed payments Rs.50,793/- Rs.50,793/- Total Rs.20,55,366/- Rs.20,55,366/- 3.

That it is reiterated here that due to the financial crunch being faced by the office of the deponent, the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner could not be paid in time, however, the same has now been paid and nothing is due to be paid to the petitioner. The delay in releasing the aforesaid amount is neither intentional nor deliberate, however, the same has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the answering respondent."

3.

In view of the above, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

{3} 4.

Accordingly, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move an application for revival of the writ petition in case something survives therein.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 13, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No