SADHU RAM PALL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is one amongsts innumerable cases filed by retired Government servants who have been denied their pre-retirement service benefits and post-retirement benefits and who have been compelled to seek intervention of the Court solely on account of in sensitive and most casual approach adopted by the departmental authorities towards their plight.

(2.) The petitioner had joined service as (A) Class Naib Tehsildar on 1.9.1956 and was retired as Tehsildar with effect from 31.10.1983 i.e. after having rendered 27 years of service. Till the date of filing of the writ petition, he had not been paid his monetary dues payable to him under the relevant service rules. After 2 days of his retirement, Joint Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Punjab issued order dated 2.11.1983 for fixation of pay of the petitioner and also declaring that the petitioner has not been allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1.11.1979. Another order of fixation of pay was issued on 11.1.1984 (Annexure P/2). Notwithstanding the passing of orders for fixation of pay of the petitioner, the departmental authorities slumbered over the claim of the petitioner to be paid actual benefit of pay fixation. He, therefore, made representations dated 24.4.84, 2.8.84, 19.8.85, 2.1.1986 and 20.1.86 (Annexures P/3 to P/7). Amount of gratuity was also not paid to the petitioner and for this he made representations time and again, one of which has been placed on record at Annexure P/8 dated 9.2.1988. Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Revenue Department wrote letters dated 8.4.1986 (Annexure P/9), 23.1.1987 (Annexure P/13), 22.3.1988 (Annexures P/15) directing various departmental authorities to arrange payment of arrears and C.P. Fund to the petitioner. However, his instructions also proved futile in the same fashion in which cries of the petitioner for justice went unheeded. Petitioner's efforts to awake the authorities even by service of notice through his advocate did not yield any tangible result.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged action of the respondents in not allowing him to cross the efficiency bar, not paying him General Provident Fund Amount, the arrears of salary as well as pay and allowances for the period during which he had remained under suspension.