- (1.) The petitioner who retired as Secretary, Market Committee, Biwanigarh, on March 31, 1991, claims that he has not been paid the retiral benefits as due to him under the rules and orders issued by the respondent. A grievance has been made that the amount of money due to him on account of the release of General Provident Fund and leave encashment has not been paid in accordance with the rules. A prayer for the payment of all the arrears along with interest @ 18% has been made.
(2.) On behalf of the respondent it has been interalia, averred that the amounts of money as due to the petitioner have already been paid. As such, it is urged that the petitioner is not entitled to reliefs as claimed by him. It has also been averred that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of a revision petition under section 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964. The petitioner has filed a replication controverting the averments, made on behalf of the respondent and reiterating his claim.
(3.) I have heard Mr. A.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajan Gupta for the respondent. Mr. Jain has urged that the petitioner has not been paid the amount of provident fund in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing board and Market Committees Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). He has further urged that the petitioner has also hot been paid the amount which was due to him on account of the encashment of leave, he has consequently prayed that writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay these amounts along with interest @ 18% should be issued. On the other hand, Mr. Rajan Gupta has contended that the petitioner has been actually paid the amounts of money due to him.;