IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13152 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 26.08.2009 Shanti Sarup .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has retired from the services of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, as Tubewell Driver, on 30.11.2004, on attaining the age of superannuation. After three years of his retirement, he served a legal notice dated 18.7.2008 upon the respondents claiming the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1400-2460 with effect from 1.8.1986. He also claimed that though he was to retire on 30.11.2004, but he was relieved from his duties on 23.12.2004, therefore, he was entitled for salary of 23 days. The petitioner further claimed that an amount of Rs. 2,99,541/- towards Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as `CPF') was paid to him on 17.12.2007, therefore, he was entitled to interest on the delayed payment. In the writ petition (CWP No. 17223 of 2008), filed by the CWP No. 13152 of 2009 -2- petitioner, this Court vide order dated 29.9.2008, directed the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice and decide the same. In view of the said direction, vide order dated 16.12.2008, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana (respondent No.3 herein), the legal notice served by the petitioner has been decided and his claim with regard to the aforesaid reliefs has been rejected. The said order, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-12, has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the claim with regard to salary for 23 days, the period for which the petitioner is alleged to have worked after his superannuation. Regarding the other two prayers, I have heard the learned counsel and find no merit in the same. Regarding the grant of pay scale of Rs. 1400-2640 with effect from 1.8.1996, the following observations have been made in the impugned order : “As regard the claim of the petitioner No. (i) above, the office record established that consequent upon the receipt of the Govt. order of implementation of the recommendations of Chapter 26 of the Punjab Third Pay Commission Report, 1986, the seniority interest of the employees working on skilled posts was finalised. It may be stated here that as per the recommendations, the skilled employees were to be redesignated as Technician Grade-I, Technician Grade-II, Technician Grade-III, Technician Grade-IV and Junior CWP No. 13152 of 2009 -3- Technician as per their length of service and separate grades were notified for each of the stated designation. In the process, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 31 of seniority list and accordingly was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and was redesignated as Technician Grade-III. It may also be stated here that Pre Audit scheme is applicable in Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, therefore, the audit has duly verified the service records of all the employees before the benefit of Chapter 26 was given to the employees. It is also necessary to clarify here that the post of EPD (Tubewell Driver) is a non-provincialised cadre post and as such the employees working in the Municipal Corporation are the employees of that Municipal Corporation and have no connection whatsoever with the Tubewell Drivers working in the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana. As such, the contention of the petitioner that employees of Municipal Corporation Amritsar were given any pay scale has no relevance with this case.” From the aforesaid observations, it appears that the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2100 was granted to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986. The audit party has duly verified the service record of all the employees of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhaian before the benefit of Chapter 26 of the Punjab Third Pay Commission Report, 1986 was given to them. At that time, the petitioner did not raise any objection. He accepted the said pay scale and till the time of his retirement, no objection was raised by him. Only after his retirement, he started making the claim of pay scale of Rs. 1410-2460 by alleging that the similar benefit was given to the employees CWP No. 13152 of 2009 -4- of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. On the specific question, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point any instance, where benefit of the aforesaid pay scale was given to any of the employee of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. In my opinion, respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner, while observing that the pay scales granted to the employees of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, has no relevancy with this case. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the rejection of this claim of the petitioner by respondent No.3. Regarding the claim of interest on the delayed payment of CPF, it has been stated in the impugned order that immediately after the retirement of the petitioner, the amount of his CPF was calculated, sanctioned and released to him on 20.12.2005. However, the petitioner did not accept the same, as at that time, he was asking for pension, for which he had not opted at the relevant time under the Pension Rules. Subsequently, when the petitioner could not succeed in his claim for pension, he requested for release of the said amount, which was released to him immediately on his request on 17.12.2007. In these facts, it has been rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled for any interest. Thus, I do not find any ground to grant interest to the petitioner on the alleged delayed payment. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Dismissed. August 26, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE