HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14713 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.02.2011 **** Gandhi Ram . . . . Petitioner VS. Municipal Corporation UT Chd.& Ors. . . . . 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. Mukesh Bhatnagar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Gratuity, Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), Leave Encashment and arrears of pension etc. from the date of his retirement till actual realization. (2). Shorn of the details, the petitioner joined as a Chowkidar in the office of the Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh on 01.04.1971 and continued to serve as such till 05.09.1997 when his services were transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in exercise of the powers under Section 428-A(2)(h) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation CWP No.14713 of 2009.doc - 2 – Act, 1976 as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner retired from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh w.e.f. 30.11.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since the retiral dues have been paid to him on different dates ranging from 16.06.2006 to the year 2009 and his claim for the interest lodged with various authorities of the Chandigarh Administration remained unattended that he has now approached this Court. (3). The case in hand is a glaring example of the insensitivity of the Chandigarh Administration towards a Class-IV employee who spent a major part of his life in its service. (4). The respondent-Municipal Corporation has filed its reply/affidavit explaining that the petitioner’s case was referred to the Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh on 07.09.2005 for its onward submission to the Accountant General, UT Chandigarh; for the transfer of 100% commutation of pension, DCRG and other retiral dues to the Corporation for payment to the petitioner. The said reference was made for the reason that the petitioner was a substantive employee of the UT Administration even after the transfer of his services to the Municipal Corporation. The Corporation’s stand was fortified by the notification dated 10.11.2005 issued by the Ministry of CWP No.14713 of 2009.doc - 3 – Home Affairs, Government of India amending the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992, incorporating that “all charges on account of the retirement benefits such as pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. to the employees transferred from the Administration of Chandigarh to the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh……. would be borne by the Administration of Chandigarh”. (5). The reply/affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh along with several other documents further reveal that notwithstanding the repeated communications sent by it, the UT Administration did not care to respond nor released the petitioner’s retiral dues. As has been noticed earlier, the first payment was released towards the arrears of Group Insurance Scheme on 7th June, 2006 followed by provisional pension sanctioned on 27th December, 2006. The petitioner finally received a reply from the Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh vide letter dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure P9) informing that the petitioner “will be paid all retiral benefits till the finalization of the cases by Finance Secretary/Accountant General (A&E), UT Chandigarh in respect of transferred employees of the Municipal Corporation.” CWP No.14713 of 2009.doc - 4 – (6). The treatment meted out to the petitioner who had spent more than 35 years in the service of the Chandigarh Administration, least to say, was totally uncalled for. It is a matter of grave concern that the undisputed claim of a Class-IV employee on his retirement was kept lying dormant for years on end while no such mis-happening ever takes place in the case of the mandarin. The manner in which the petitioner – a retiree, has been treated like no-one’s baby, is highly deprecated. It is though a fit case for imposing exemplary costs on the officers of the Chandigarh Administration, however, the fair stand taken by the Municipal Corporation coupled with the fact that the Chandigarh Administration has not been impleaded as a party-respondent, dissuades this Court from awarding the same. (7). Since the petitioner has been denied his retiral dues for years for no fault to be attributed to him, the writ petition is allowed and firstly the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh is directed to pay interest to the petitioner @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 till the actual payment of each of the retiral dues. The arrears of interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to special costs of CWP No.14713 of 2009.doc - 5 – Rs.25000/-. On payment of the arrears of interest and the cost amount to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to seek reimbursement of the said amount from the Chandigarh Administration, who in turn, is directed to reimburse the same. It is further directed that in the event of any dispute raised by the Chandigarh Administration against the reimbursement, the Advisor to Administration, UT Chandigarh shall hold a fact-finding enquiry and fix the responsibility of the officer(s) for the delay caused in the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 16.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge