CWP No.10257 of 2007.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10257 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.02.2010 **** Dr. Santosh Mittal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Kamal Grover, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to decide her claim contained in the legal notice dated 14.03.2009 (Annexure P1) and release full and final arrears of General Provident Fund along with interest @ 18% per annum. (2). The petitioner had joined the respondent-Department as an Ayurvedic Vaid on 04.01.1971 and retired from the post of Senior Ayurvedic Physician on 31.03.2006. Her grievance is that though 90 per cent of the GPF/Gratuity was paid and that too after delay, 10% amount is still lying withheld for no reason at all. CWP No.10257 of 2007.doc - 2 – (3). Upon notice, the respondents have filed their counter-reply, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Preliminary Submissions thereof read as under:- 1. That the petitioner retired on 30.03.2006 and 90% of the GPF amount Rs.7,41,307/- was paid to the petitioner on 17.08.2006 well in time. The remaining amount of 10% GPF final payment amounting to Rs.19983/- was paid on 29.10.2007 along with interest upto 31.08.2006. 2. That the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P6) for review of sanction of final payment of GPF on 10.09.2007, requesting to release difference of final payment of GPF amounting to Rs.64601-12 P and on inspection of the whole record of GPF an amount of Rs.30104/- of missing credits was paid to the petitioner on 20.07.2009. Further another payment of interest amounting to Rs.62474/- was paid to the petitioner on 01.12.2009. (4). In this view of the matter, it appears that the respondents have paid the due interest on the delayed payment at the rate prescribed in the Government Policy. No further action in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court is, thus, called for except to give liberty to the petitioner that if any other monetary benefit is recoverable, she may file the Civil Suit. (5). Disposed of. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) CWP No.10257 of 2007.doc - 3 – JUDGE 23.02.2010 vishal shonkar