IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16332 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 13, 2010. Bishan Dass .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass neither notices are required to be issued to respondent Nos.3 & 4 nor any counter- reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 is needed at this stage. The petitioner, who retired as a Head Fireman/Leading Fireman from the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, w.e.f. 30.6.2006, seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release the arrears of General Provident Fund and of the revised pay scale which have been granted C.W.P.No .16332 of 2010 2 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The petitioner also claims interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payments. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have made several representations including dated 20.3.2009, 14.10.2009 and 12.8.2010 (Annexures P-2 to P-4) but no action appears to have been taken thereupon so far. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner as contained in the aforesaid representations and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the arrears and the same are found to have been with-held without any fault on his part, the petitioner shall also be paid interest on the delayed payments as is admissible under the Government Instructions. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. September 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE