AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Gupta, J.—Petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court in respect of non-payment of retiral benefits. This Court vide order dated 4.3.2009 directed the Respondent to consider the claim of the Petitioner under Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short the ''ACP'') on completion of 14 years of service and other service benefits like 50% D.A. etc.
In terms of the said directions, Respondent has passed an order (Annexure R-I) on 22.6.2009 paying arrears on account of merger of 50% DA in the basic pay and the due payment of gratuity with immediate effect. Annexure R-2 dated 17.11.2009 is the order wherein it was ordered that arrears of proficiency step up are to be paid from 1.11.2007 with immediate effect. Thereafter, different affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondent but in the affidavit filed on 4.8.2010, it has been explained that ACP of 8-16-24-32 years was applicable from 1.1.1986. The Petitioner was granted proficiency step up/ACP of 8 years on 28.4.1990. The Petitioner was eligible for 16 year ACP benefit w.e.f. 28.4.1998 but on account of his suspension, the Petitioner was granted 16 years ACP benefit vide order dated 29.1.2003. Thereafter, the ACP Scheme of 4-9-14 years came into force, but since the Petitioner was already granted the ACP Scheme of 16 years under the old scheme, therefore he was entitled for one more increment under the new scheme. He has been granted such benefit w.e.f. 1.11.2007.
In respect of commuted value of pension, it has been pointed out that the basic pension was Rs. 3,413/- per month and Rs. 1,365/- as 40% was to be commuted. The Petitioner was paid the full pension w.e.f. 1.4.2008 to 31.1.2010. The commuted value of pension payable to the Petitioner was Rs. 1,71,334/-and deducting Rs. 30,030/-on account of payment of full pension for certain period, the balance comes to Rs. 1,41,304/-which stands paid.
Another affidavit dated 12.11.2010 has been filed by Respondent pointing out the detail of benefits along with the date on which such benefits have been paid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner disputes the grant of ACP scale and of commuted value of pension.
The Respondent has granted ACP scale and also detailed the circumstances as to how such scale has been granted and also explained the payments in respect of commuted value of pension. Therefore, I do not find any case is made out for continuation of the present contempt petition. However, if the Petitioner has any other subsisting grievance, he is at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law from an appropriate forum.
Disposed of with liberty aforesaid.