IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1289 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 18.03.2008 Pala Ram ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate vs. P.K.Goyal & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the order dated 3.5.2007 passed by this Court in C.W.P.No.6502 of 2007 whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the legal notice within a period of three months, has not been complied with. In the said legal notice, the petitioner had sought the release of his retiral benefits along with interest as he had already retired from service with effect from 31.12.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation. Show cause notice was issued and in response thereto, reply/affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 which is taken on record. From the contents of the above-stated reply, it is revealsed that according to the respondents, the petitioner was promoted as Upper C.O.C.P. No.1289 of 2007 -2- Divisional Clerk on 16.1.1981 and as per the terms and conditions contained in his order of promotion, he was required to pass the Departmental Accounts Examination within two years or 5 successive chances. It is averred that the petitioner could not pass the above-stated Departmental Accounts Examination, therefore, his continuation as Upper Divisional Clerk was contrary to the Rules. On this premise, the respondents want to suggest that the petitioner is not entitled for the retiral benefits on the basis of the pay drawn by him as U.D.C. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was never asked to appear in the Departmental Examination, therefore, no occasion to pass the same ever arose. Be that as it may, it is not disputed that the petitioner continued to hold the post of UDC after his promotion in the year 1981 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006. At this belated stage, the respondents cannot be permitted to suggest that the continuation of the petitioner on the above-stated promotional post was contrary to Rules. Once the petitioner, till attaining the age of superannuation discharged the duties of Upper Divisional Clerk and drew the salary as admissible to an Upper Divisional Clerk, it is obligated upon the respondents to determine his retiral benefits by treating him to have retired from the post of Upper Divisional Clerk only. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a clarificatory direction that the needful shall now be done by the respondents in the light of the above-made observations and all the retiral benefits shall be released in favour of the petitioner as early as possible but not later than three C.O.C.P. No.1289 of 2007 -3- months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the delayed payments. Rule discharged. March 18, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE