CWP No.18 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2010 **** Chander Mohan . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner joined the Punjab Roadways Department as a Conductor on 01.02.1966. When the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was constituted in the year 1980, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the said Corporation. While other deputationists were repatriated in the year 1983, the petitioner continued to serve the Corporation till he was absorbed vide order dated 14.08.1995. (2). It further appears that in the year 1980, the services in the Municipal Corporation also became CWP No.18 of 2009.doc - 2 – pensionable. The employees were given option to opt for ‘pension scheme’ subject to their refund of the Employers’ Contribution towards EPF. According to the petitioner, the Employers’ Contribution, for the period during which he served the Transport Department, was to be refunded to the Corporation by the said Department. The Transport Department, however, did not deposit the same though the petitioner wanted to opt for the ‘Pension Scheme’. He accordingly is said to have deposited the said amount of Rs.1,09,154/- to the Corporation from his own pocket. (3). Now when all other retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner, the only controversy pertains to the non-refund of the said amount of Rs.1,09,154/-. (4). Though the Municipal Corporation as well as the Transport Department authorities have filed their respective counter-affidavits, the same are too evasive to ascertain as to whether or not the said amount of Rs.1,09,154/- has been refunded to the petitioner by the Transport Department or the Corporation. CWP No.18 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). Be that as it may, the petitioner, who has already retired from service of the Municipal Corporation, cannot be treated like a shuttle cock or forced to run from pillar to post merely because of lack of coordination or insensitivities of the authorities of the Transport Department on the one hand and the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, on the other. (6). The writ is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 4 (i.e. the Director, State Transport Department, Government of Punjab and the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar) to convene a joint meeting within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order wherein the modalities of the refund of the disputed amount to the petitioner, shall be resolved. However, it is made clear that in the event of any dissent between the two Wings, the petitioner in all circumstance, shall be paid the aforesaid amount by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order without prejudice to the Corporation’s right to seek reimbursement/refund thereof, along with interest from the Transport Department, Government of Punjab. CWP No.18 of 2009.doc - 4 – (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.03.2010 vishal shonkar