Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P No. 1278 of 2011 Date of Decision: 3.11.2011. Ram Lal Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B & others Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate . For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh,,J (oral) : By means of present petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:- “1). That the respondent-Board may be directed to grant the retrial benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest within time bound period as the same are not being paid to the petitioner for the last more than one year. ii) That the respondents may further be directed to calculate the GPF payment paid to the petitioner and remaining payment may also be ordered to be release in favour of the petitioner alongwith upto date interest.” - 2 - 2. The petitioner stands retired from the respondent Board as Section Officer on 31.12.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. His G.P.F was wrongly calculated, as such in the month of March, 2010 he made a representation to the respondent-Board for its correct calculation despite that retiral benefits were not paid to him as such, he sent a legal notice to the respondent-Board. When nothing was heard, the present petition was filed seeking the above reliefs: 3. The stand of the respondent is that, they took time in calculating the arrear of retiral benefits as strike period of petitioner was not regularized. However, they also sent his case to field units where remained posted to verify his service. When this matter was under consideration, in the meantime there was revision of pay scales of the employees of the Board which were made applicable on and w.e.f 1.1.2006. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was also required to be re-fixed and the details were again sought from the place where petitioner remained posted. Had this fact been ignored, the petitioner would have been put to a financial loss, therefore, in the best wisdom of the respondent-Board thought it proper to collect all the information from the quarter concerned and after finalizing the pay of the - 3 - petitioner in consultation with the field units on making entries in the revenue record released the retiral benefits stand released to the petitioner but amount of Rs. 9012/- and amount of Rs. 1,58,893/- as indicated in para VI of sur- rejoinder filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 were not paid as it required the orders of the competent authority. Thus the delay was bonafide and in the best interest of the petitioner. 4. Since the controversy has cut down to a very narrow compass, therefore, the respondent-Board is hereby directed to release the balance amount as indicated above to the petitioner within a period of three months failing which, it shall carry simple interest @ 12% from the date, it fell due. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. November 3,2011 (Surinder Singh), (priti) Judge. - 4 -