Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) Jagjit Singh Walia -Secretary, Market Committee Malout retired from service of the Punjab Mandikaran Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') on November 30, 1987 on attaining the age of superannuation. Under the service rules and regulations, he is entitled for all the pensionary benefits - pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. The petitioner was not paid the pensionary benefits as permissible under the rules, therefore, he has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay the pensionary benefits to him, which have been withheld arbitrarily and unlawfully.
(2.) The respondents raised preliminary objection that the petitioner never vent to the grievances by way of filing a revision petition before the State Government under Sec. 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 before filing the present writ petition. He had also concealed certain facts as he was involved in material irregularities committed by him. RSA No. 465 of 1982 filed by the Committee arising from the judgment and degree of the courts below is pending before this Court. On merits, it is admitted that the petitioner had been serving the Board till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. It is inter alia pleaded that after he has submitted necessary documents, the Board had made certain payments to him. i.e. arrears of pension with effect from 1.12.1987 to 30.9.1999, commuted value of pension and amount of leave encashment. However, the amount of gratuity and a portion of leave encashment due to the petitioner has been withheld and reason for the same is that certain amounts are outstanding against the petitioner on account of withdrawal of excess amount of travelling allowance amounting to Rs. 497.87 while serving in Market Committee, Malout. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) 1 have heard Shri Kasturi Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of the fact that the respondent was informed through counsel.;