C.W.P. No.3299 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3299 of 1990 Date of decision:05.02.2010 Khazan Singh ............Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Rajat Panjeta Advocate for Mr. R. S. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana. ALOK SINGH J. 1. This petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the difference of arrears of backwages i.e. difference of pay between Rs.974.10 to Rs.1323.65 with interest. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are that petitioner was terminated from the service on 23.09.1976. However, on reference, Labour Court vide award dated 17.06.1982, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages excluding the period upto 06.10.1978, from the date of his C.W.P. No.3299 of 1990 -2- termination. Award dated 17.06.1982 was challenged by the respondent-department by way of filing writ petition in this Court, however, this Court confirmed the award. Department failed to make compliance of the award, hence, petitioner filed contempt petition bearing COCP No.106 of 1983 in this Court, in which respodents undertook to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits as per the direction of the Labour Court. Petitioner was thereafter reinstated and back wages were paid by the respondents to the petitioner by calculating the basic pay of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.974.10 and not the actual pay of Rs.1323.65 . Aggrieved from the less payment, petitioner filed the present petition. 3. Respondents filed their written statement. In paragraph 6-A of the written statement, respondents have stated as under:- "That para no.6-A of the writ petition has been wrongly numbered as 6 instead of 7. This para of the writ petition is wrong hence denied. The petitioner was to be paid back wages from 6.10.1978 to the date of reinstatement. The arrears amounting to Rs.2706.05ps paid as ex-gratia from 17.6.1975 to 22.9.1976 and Rs.45094.95ps paid as salary from 6.10.1978 to 31.10.1983, total amounting to Rs.47701/- has been paid to the petitioner against receipt in February, 1984. It is wrong to allege that the basic pay of the petitioner is Rs.1323.65ps rather the basic pay of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.160/- p.m. is Rs.934.20ps which has been calculated by the department correctly and not C.W.P. No.3299 of 1990 -3- Rs.974.10ps as alleged by the petitioner and nothing is to be paid by the department as salary to the petitioner upto 31.10.1983." 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, petitioner received the entire payment which was calculated by the department at the rate of Rs.934.20ps per month. This is also undisputed that he has not received payment under protest. Petitioner has not filed any pay slip to prove that his salary was Rs.1323.65ps and Rs.934.20ps was never his pay. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that pay of the petitioner was in fact Rs.934.20ps per month and not Rs.974.10ps. He further stated that salary of the petitioner was never Rs.1323.65ps. 7. In the absence of any pay slip and in the absence of any protest at the time of receiving payment, I do not find any justification to issue any direction. Moreover, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to enter into the matter of calculation and question of fact. Hence, I am of the view, this writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) 05.02.2010 JUDGE ashish