PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed by the petitioner in person on 28.9.1992. Order sheets dated 9.9.1992 to 14.12.1994 show that on each and every date the petitioner was present in person. This he apparently did with the hope that the Court will be able to hear and decide his claim on the grant of interest on the arrears of his salary etc. at an early date. The very fact that the Court has fixed as many as six dates of hearing between 29.9.1992 and 14.12.1994 shows the anxiety on the part of the Court to make an expeditious adjudication of the claim made by a retired employee. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner is not present today cannot be a ground for delaying the grant of relief to him if any due.

(2.) Even though four opportunities have been given to the respondents to file reply and one of these was subject to the payment of Rs. 500/- as costs, the respondents have not chosen to file reply to the writ petition will have to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the petition itself.

(3.) The facts which emerged from the Writ Petition show that the Petitioner retired from he Service of the Government of Punjab with effect from 31.3.1987 while he was holding the post of Executive Engineer, Project Construction, Irrigation Branch, Head Office at Chandigarh. While he was still in Service, the departmental authorities withheld his salary for the period between 1.9.1984 to 8.3.1985 and 7.4. 1985 to 15.6.1985.