ASHOK BHAN,J - (1.) IN the year 1985, petitioner was working as Senior Design Engineer (Executive Engineer). On 3-6-1987 FIR No. 105 was registered at Police Station Pathankot and the petitioner according to his allegations, was involved in a case under TADA. Petitioner got anticipatory bail from this Court. On 27-7-1987, petitioner was placed under suspension on 4-5-1988, petitioner was discharged in the case registered against him vide FIR No. 105 dated 3-7-1987. Petitioner on having been discharged claimed reinstatement but no action was taken and ultimately petitioner filed CWP No. 5889 of 1989 challenging his order of suspension. This writ petition finally came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of on 31-8-1989. State of Punjab placed on record a copy of the government order dated 23-8-1989 whereby suspension of the petitioner was rescinded and he was ordered to be reinstated and posted as Senior Design Engineer in Hydel Design Organisation at Chandigarh. A direction was given regarding payment of arrears due to the petitioner and it was ordered that the arrears be paid within a period of two months. In case of default, the petitioner was held to be entitled to recover the arrears with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the order dated 31-8-1989, is reproduced below :- "Mr. Raina has placed on record a copy of the Government order dated August 23, 1989 whereby the suspension of the petitioner has been rescinded and he has been reinstated and posted as Senior Design Engineer, Hydel Design Organisation Chandigarh with immediate effect. In the light of this, the petition has obviously been rendered infructuous. However, Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not been paid his emoluments since the date of his suspension i.e. July 27, 1987. He seeks a direction for payment of all the arrears within a specified period. The request of the learned counsel on the face of it is genuine and fair. We therefore direct that the petitioner would by paid all the arrears within a period of two months from today. In case of default, the petitioner would be entitled to recover all the arrears with interest at the rate of 15 percent. This petition stands disposed of as indicated above".
(2.) THE petitioner was given his posting orders after about 1-1/2 months of the passing of the order by this Court. Petitioner alleges that the authorities wished to harass and humiliate the petitioner at the instance of Shri Ajit Singh the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab. Petitioner claimed that he was not paid his arrears due to him and ultimately was compelled to file C. O. C. P. No. 132 of 1990 in February 1990 after having waited for a period of six months from the passing of the order by this Court CWP No. 5889 of 1989. It is alleged that the petitioner addressed numerous representations to the authorities and personally met the authorities on numerous occasions for release of the arrears and disbursement of the same to him COCP No. 132 of 1990, was dismissed on 26-4-1990. A copy of this order has been attached as Annexure P/5. This petition was disposed of by passing the following order :- "Returns have been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the contents of the same and more particularly that of respondent No. 2 and Annexure R 2/1 and R 2-9, I am satisfied that no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 31-8-1989 is involved. Therefore, this petition is dismissed:. The stand taken by the respondents in COCP No. 132 of 1990 was that the petitioner himself was the drawing and disbursing officer and he was himself responsible for not drawing the emoluments in response to the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 5889 of 1989. The petitioner claimed that he had not been issued the pay slip which was required to be issued by the authorities as a pre-requisite for claiming arrears. Still the arrears were not released to the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner filed the present contempt petition. Cheque amounting to Rs. 2,22,537/- was handed over to the petitioner as arrears of salary. Petitioner claimed that he had not been paid the full arrears and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was still due to him, the details of which were given by him in para 9 of his replication, which reads as under :- Sr. No. Count Amount (i) Excess income-tax deductions 17,458.00 (ii) Field Allowance 7,678.00 (iii) Proficiency step-up with effect from 22-2-87 8,125.00 (iv) Salary for the period from 12-7-1991 to 30-9-1991 21,000.00 Total 55,261.00 In addition to these arrears, petitioner also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum as the arrears of pay etc. were not paid to the petitioner within two months as ordered by this Court in CWP No. 5889 of 1990. This claim was contested by the respondents in para 9 of their reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondents to the re-joinder of the petitioner regarding the claim of Rs. 55,000/-. The item wise position is mentioned as under :- "Income-tax Deductions :- The petitioner did not Supply the income tax statement (s) in time and the office worked out the income tax according to rules actually based on the available information. The petitioner may be directed to file his returns to the Income-tax Department for refund of excess income tax recovered, if any. Field Allowance :- The petitioner has not submitted any claim so far for this item. The same will be paid as soon as the details duly countersigned by his superior officer is received. Proficiency step-up :- The proficiency step-up has not so far been sanctioned to the petitioner and as such the payment could not be made. The payment will be arranged as soon as the proficiency step-up will be sanctioned by the Competent Authority. Salary for the period from 12-7-1991 to 30-9-1991. The petitioner was relieved from the project on 11-7-91 A. N. as per Punjab Government orders No. 20/27/89 IPP (2)125-5 dated 10-6-91 and as such this claim is not maintainable." It was stated that the claim made by the petitioner was not admitted being incorrect and that the petitioner was not entitled to any interest as the petitioner himself was responsible for not drawing the amount he being the drawing and disbursing officer, that the petitioner did not co-operate with the department in the disbursement of his arrears. Respondents further claimed that in fact a sum of Rs. 93,780/- is due from the petitioner on account of house rent for the period from January 1975 to 18-11-1984.
(3.) I have perused the record and heard the counsel for the parties at length.;