- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding upon the respondents to specially the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps for proper fixation of pension as per company's rate. (b) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents specially the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to give explanation as to why Rs. 53,000/ - was deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner against the company's quarter while during whose of his service he was never allotted any quarter by the Management. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to give reason as to under what circumstances P.F. contribution amount of 33 months w.e.f. 1.4.80 to 31.12.82 is upheld up till now of the petitioner. (d) For issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to make the following retiral dues of the petitioner: - (i) Difference of pension amount at the rate of Rs.1,000/ - p.m. arising out of less payment due to wrong fixation. (ii) Rs. 53,000/ - wrongly deducted in the name of Company's quarter. (iii) P.F. contribution .amount of 33 months w.e.f. 1.4.80 to 31.12.82. (iv) Interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the above amount alongwith compensation and exculpatory cost.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he is not pressing his first prayer to the writ petition with regard to proper fixation of pension. However, he presses other two prayers made in paras '(b)' and '(c)'. The prayer '(b)' relates to deduction of an amount of Rs. 53,000/ - for retaining the company's quarter which is not allotted to the petitioner.
(3.) AS regards the prayer '(c)' the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out at para -10 of the counter affidavit which is quoted as under: - "That the final C.MP.F. Amount was calculated as per the contribution of he petitioner in which the petitioner had contributed since C.P.E. 3/83. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid the P.F. amount from 1.4.1980 to 31.12.82 is not correct. As stated herein above that there was no contribution of the petitioner from 1.4.80 till 31.3.81 and the petitioner has been paid the P.F. amount for the period from 1.4.80 till 31.12.82.";