Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 May, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.6080 of 2013
Date of decision: 8.5.2013
Manjeet Kaur
-----Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Punjab & ors.
-----Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No.394 of 2011, seeking the following relief:-
"Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and release pensionary benefits of petitioner including CPF, DCRG, Leave Encashment, Pension etc. upon her retirement from service w.e.f. 01.11.2006 to 31.08.2009 alongwith penal interest."CWP No.6080 of 2013 2
2. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2011 by passing the following order:-
"The prayer made in the petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner including CPF, DCRG, leave encashment, pension etc. upon her retirement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that necessary payment has been made to the petitioner and now nothing remains due to be paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also filed an affidavit in this regard wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been released salary and other retiral dues.
In response to this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is difference in calculation and the payment has not been made to the petitioner as per her entitlement.
In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, the present petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as having rendered infructuous. However, in case, any difference of calculation is there, the petitioner is at liberty to move a representation by mentioning all details and the respondents are directed to look into the representation and pass necessary order."
3. It is the case of the petitioners that he made a representation to the respondents by issuing a Legal Notice dated 20.7.2012 (Annexure P-9), claiming the following amounts:- CWP No.6080 of 2013 3
"(a) It is specifically mentioned here that CDPO, Superintendent, Accountant, Clerks, Peons and even retired Supervisor have been paid their salary in the revised pay scale implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, whereas pay of my client has not been revised with fact from 01.01.2006. Thus arrears of pay and pension + other retiral benefits are required to be paid to her, which have been paid on the basis of unrevised pay scale. As such benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 is liable to be granted to my client and consequently entire arrears including revised pensionary benefits and arrears accruing there from are liable to be paid her.
(b) As already submitted in the previous representation / legal notice my client served as Mukh Gram Sevika, a post higher than the post of Craft Teacher from 06.09.2002 to 20.08.2009. However, for this period, salary of Craft Teacher has only been given to her. As such for the said period salary of the post of Mukh Gram Sevika is liable to be paid to my client.
(c) That further my client performed the duty of Supervisor from 21.08.2009 to 31.05.2010 i.e. till her retirement and she is entitled to receive salary of the said post also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court."
4. The respondents vide their reply dated 3.0.2012 (Annexure P-10) denied the claim of petitioner in the following manner:-
CWP No.6080 of 2013 4
"7. The contents of the paragraph are incorrect and has denied. The amount payable to you has already been paid to you and nothing remains to be paid. It has already been brought to notice that the benefit of 5% pay commission has not been extended to the employees of Board Area Project and as such you are not entitled to revised pay scales. As a consequence, you are not entitled to receive the retiral benefits as per revised salary. Insofar as your posting as Mukhya Sevika is concerned, it has already been stated that you were given temporary charge of the said post and it was precondition that you shall not be given any financial benefit therefore. Thus, you are not entitled to receive any financial benefit over and above the salary of craft teachers for the said period. As far as performing duties of supervisor from 21/08/2009 to 31/05/2010 is concerned, there is no record available in this office as you are working with the state of Punjab at that point of time. Please make the presentation to concerned quarters for redressal of your grievances. This office is not aware whether you performed duties of supervisor or not."
5. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition submitting that he was given liberty, vide judgment dated 20.12.2011 passed in CWP No.394 of 2011, to make a representation by mentioning all the details of the amount to which he was entitled to, but the claim of the petitioner for payment of revised pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006 has been denied illegally.
CWP No.6080 of 2013 5
6. The argument raised before this Court is misconceived.
7. It is not in dispute that in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had specifically raised the issue of payment of arrears of her pay w.e.f. 1.11.2006 to 31.8.2009, as per her entitlement. A perusal of the order dated 20.12.2011 would show that the respondents have taken a specific stand that whatever the amount was payable to the petitioner has been paid and nothing remains due on account of salary or other retiral benefits. The aforesaid order would further show that despite the argument raised, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner only with regard to calculations of the dues and petitioner was never permitted to raise the issue of her entitlement with regard to payment of arrears of revised pay scales, as claimed in the writ petition.
8. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner states that he wants to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to seek review of order dated 20.12.2011.
9. Thus, the instant writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek review of order dated 20.12.2011 in accordance with law.
May 08, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE