G.S. Chahal, J. - (1.) Gurdial Singh petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 1st May, 1979. This order was challenged by him in a Civil suit, which was stated to be pending in the court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. He claims that after order of removal, he was entitled to receive his G.P. Fund but the respondents have not released that amount. The petitioner has given chequered history of his service and litigation. His only prayer in the present writ petition is to release the G.P. Fund upto 30th April, 1979 alongwith interest till payment.
(2.) In the return, this right has been disputed on the basis of note I to rule 13.13(6) of the Punjab CSR Vol. II and it has been pleased that till the order of removal is confirmed the payment shall not be made. Rule 13.13(6) reads as follows:- "Rule 13.13(6) The interest on amounts which under sub-rule (3) of Rule 13.12, clause (5) of Rule 13.15, clause (3) of Rule 13.18 clause (4) of Rule 13.20, clause (1) of Rule 13.22, clause (1) or (2) of Rule 13.23 Rule 13.28 or Rule 13.29, are replaced at the credit of subscriber in the fund shall be calculated at such rates as may be successively prescribed under clause (1) of this rule and so far as may be in the manner described in this rule. Note (1) When a subscriber is dismissed from the service of Government but has appealed against his removal, the balance at this credit shall not be paid over to him until final orders confirming the decision are passed on his appeal. Interest shall, however, be paid on the balance upto the end of the month preceding that in which such orders are passed. Note (2) No interest shall be allowed on the amount recovered on account of the subscriptions to the fund in excess of the actual amount due. When the excess payment of subscription is adjusted by short payments in subsequent months, interest should be allowed for the latter months on the full amount due, the balance having been already received in the former months". Note I, which has been relied upon by the respondents obviously speaks of departmental appeal against the order of dismissal. This rule has to be strictly construed and the court cannot extend it to a case where the dismissed employee challenges that order of dismissal before the civil Court. If the plea taken by the respondents is accepted it will enlarge the scope of rule itself which is not warranted by law. After the petitioner was removed from service, the respondents have no right to withhold the amount of the G.P. Fund on the basis that a civil suit is pending. I, hereby allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to release the G.P. Fund to the petitioner within one month failing which the respondents shall pay further interest of 18% per annum on the amount. The petitioner shall also be entitled to Rs. 500/-as costs. Petition allowed.;