Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, an inspector in the respondent Corporation, retired from service on 30th April 2013, having initially joined the service as Conductor. Way back in 1986, the petitioner, while working as Conductor, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in imposition of punishment of barring an increment for one year with cumulative effect. When challenge was laid against the said punishment, it was dismissed by the appellate authority through Ext.P1. Eventually, through Ext.P2 order of revision dated 23.04.2012, the appellate Tribunal modified the punishment to that of without cumulative effect.
W.P.(C) No.19542 of 2014 2
3. It appears from the record that though the petitioner was paid his retirement benefits, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of Ext.P2 order he is entitled to the differential amount owing to the restoration of the increment, as it was without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the entire pay of the petitioner is required to be re-fixed and all consequential benefits are required to be paid. In this regard, despite numerous representations, including Ext.P3 legal notice, so far the authorities have not responded. Complaining of inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has fairly submitted that in the light of finality of Ext.P2, the respondent Corporation would be taking every step to re-quantify the benefits to be paid to the petitioner and would accordingly pay them as early as possible.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, without entering in to the merits of the matter, this W.P.(C) No.19542 of 2014 3 Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the demand of the petitioner as has been set out in Ext.P3 legal notice and take the necessary corrective steps for quantifying and payment of the differential amount of service benefits to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is entitled to interest. The respondent authorities may as well take into account the claim of the petitioner for interest in accordance with law.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj