R.P. Kharda vs Haryana Power Generation Co. Ltd.

J.S. Narang, J.—This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits due to the petitioner i.e. pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, group insurance scheme etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

A persual of the record shows that the petitioner who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, joined the service of the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, ''the Board'') as Tracer on 17.6.1968. He was promoted as Draftsman in the year 1972, as Head Draftsman in 1977 and as Circle Head Draftsman vide order dated 1.2.1982. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to be promoted as Chief Draftsman in February, 1986 but the order of his promotion was passed on 21.5.1993 i.e. after more than 5 years of the due date and then too he was promoted with effect from 4.8.1987. After 4 years and 4 months from the date of issuance of the order of promotion of the petitioner, notice dated 4.10.1996 was served upon him to show cause against the proposed cancellation of the order of his promotion as Chief Draftsman on the ground that he had been promoted in excess of the quota prescribed for Scheduled Castes. He filed reply to contest the proposed action but no final decision was taken by the competent authority of the Board and its successor-Haryana Power General Corporation Limited (respondent No. 1) til] his retirement on 31.7.1999. After retirement, the petitioner made representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation for release of the retiraldues and also served a notice of demand for justice. The only response which the petitioner''s counsel received from the respondents was in the form of a copy of the memo dated 17.11.1999 sent by the Chief Engineer/Construction, HVPNL to the Chief Engineer/Administrator, HPGCL in which it was mentioned that all the concerned files with A.C.R. files of the staff posted under HPGCL have been transferred from HVPNL and, therefore, action has to be taken by HPGCL.

Shri Namit Kumar argued that non-release of reti-ral dues to the petitioner has resulted in violation not only of his legal right to receive pension but also his constitutional right to property. Learned counsel sub- mitted that the petitioner is facing great hardship due to non-payment of retiral dues and, iherefore, a mandamus be issued to the respondents to lake immediate steps for payment of reliral benefits.

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel and are satisfied that there is no tangible ground for non-release of retiral dues to the petitioner.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed or with the direction that within three months of the submission of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition, the respondents shall release the retiral dues payable to the petitioner by taking into consideration the pay which he had last drawn at the time of retirement. If there is any cogent reason for depriving him of the particular reliral benefit, then a reasoned order shall be communicated to him at the end of three months period.

Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.

Orders accordingly.