Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.03.2023
AJIT KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mahesh Srivastava with Mr.Aman Kumar, Advs.
Through: Mr.Chiranjiv Kumar & Mr.Mukesh Sachdeva, Advs. for Respondent
No.1.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner prays as under: a. To direct the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of' the last pay drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement as the petitioner was in the pay band of 15600-39100 in the grade pay of Rs. 6600 and the basic pay of the petitioner was 31120 in the interest of justice; and b. To direct the respondents to grant the 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2012 as the petitioner has completed 30 years of service in the year 2012 instead of 2013 in the interest of justice; and c. To direct the respondents to release the balance gratuity of Rs.295250/- which was not released and illegally withheld by Respondent in the interest of justice; d. To direct the respondent to release the Provident Fund accumulated in different divisions as stated in para 4 of the petition in PF A/c NO. 01111206 in Delhi and release the Provident Fund with interest of 12% in the interest of justice; and e. To direct the respondent to release the Travelling Allowance which is admissible at the time of retirement with interest of 12% in the interest of justice. 14:17 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001746 W.P.(C) 9761/2017
2. On 13.01.2023, counsel for the respondents submitted that respondents had paid and cleared all the amounts due to the petitioner. Consequently, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to take instructions.
3. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 17.01.2023 seeking clarification about the same, however, he came to know that the petitioner has expired.
4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to take instructions from the legal heirs of the petitioner and assist the court on the next date of hearing.
5. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 13.01.2023, respondents had given a statement that they had paid and cleared all the amounts due to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition by giving liberty to the LRs of the petitioner that if any amount is still due, they may approach the respondents and on receipt of such communication, respondents are directed to clarify the same to the LRs of the petitioner.
7. Needless to say that if the LRs of the petitioner are still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE MARCH 07, 2023 14:17