JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The pleadings have been exchanged and the Counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the rules of the Court. 3. The relief claimed by the petitioner in this petition is for his pay fixation in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 25.2.1989 and the consequential payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits with 18% interest. It is further prayed that the penal rent deducted from his salary be refunded with interest and his T.A. bills be also cleared. 4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Chemist Grade-II at Obra Thermal Power Station in Sonbhadra in April, 1968 and was promoted to the post of Chemist Grade-I in January, 1976. He was transferred to Anpara Thermal Power Station in June, 1992 but was transferred back from Anpara to Obra in January, 2000. Finally he retired on 31.12.2002. 5. Firstly it is urged that the petitioner was entitled to the same salary as was given to his junior Mr. M.C. Kulshrestha in view of the Office Memorandum dated 25.2.1989 from the date the said anomaly was created on grant of the third time scale to him. It is further prayed that the petitioner is also entitled for payment of pension keeping in mind the aforesaid last drawn salary. 6. The officials of the respondent organization were entitled to three time scales by various orders but all of them were superceded by Office Memorandum dated 25.2.1989. The said Memorandum provides that in case any junior to an incumbent is receiving a higher salary in the same grade to his senior, the said senior will be entitled to similar salary if the anomaly persists at the time of grant of the third time scale. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is stated that one Mr. M.C. Kulshrestha was directly appointed as Chemist Grate-I on 7.6.1978 while the petitioner was appointed on 21.1.1976 and thus was senior to him. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition it is stated that Sri Kulshrestha was given the third time pay scale of Rs. 14300-18900 on 7.6.1997 but the petitioner was given third time pay scale of Rs. 10,650-15,200 from 1.1.1996 which fact is evident from a perusal of paragraph 11 of the writ petition. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition it is stated that Sri Kulshrestha was given the third time pay scale of Rs. 14300-18900 on 7.6.1997 but the petitioner was given third time pay scale of Rs. 10,650-15,200 from 1.1.1996 which fact is evident from a perusal of paragraph 11 of the writ petition. It is also apparent from perusal of paragraph 11 and 18 that though the petitioner was senior, he was getting Rs. 15,200/- while Sri Kulshrestha was getting Rs. 16,200/- with effect from 7.6.1997. He raised his grievance through various representations even before and after his retirement through his representations dated 1.10.2001, 7.11.2002 etc., to no avail. The aforesaid averments made in paragraph 11, 17,18 and 19 of the writ petition have not been specifically denied. Thus, in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 25.12.1989, the existence and operation of which has also not been denied, the petitioner is entitled to the same salary which was being given to his junior Sri M. C. Kulshrestha from the date of grant of third time pay scale, i.e. with effect from 9.6.1997. Likewise the petitioner is entitled to computation of his pension and other retiral benefits taking into account the salary, which has now to be fixed in view of the aforesaid observations. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the penal rent deducted from his salary, on the facts of this case, was illegal and he is entitled for refund together with interest. 8. It is not denied that the officials of the respondent organization are entitled for rent free accommodation as is averred in paragraph 24 of the writ petition. The averments in paragraph 25 and 26 to the effect that he occupied official accommodation at Obra after due permission in anticipation of allotment, are also not denied. Though the petitioner was transferred to Anpara in 1992, he did not take any official accommodation at Anpara and continued to occupy the same at Obra but in spite of it the penal rent was deducted. The Chief Engineer as well as Executive Engineer through their letters dated 26.9.1997 and 30.9.1997 directed that as the petitioner had not occupied any official accommodation at Anpara, no penal rent can be recovered from him but no action was taken. The Chief Engineer as well as Executive Engineer through their letters dated 26.9.1997 and 30.9.1997 directed that as the petitioner had not occupied any official accommodation at Anpara, no penal rent can be recovered from him but no action was taken. However, the House Allotment Committee vide its order dated 22.6.2000 allotted the said official accommodation at Obra with effect from 19.9.1990 which fact as stated in paragraph 32 of the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavit. However, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that he was entitled to the accommodation only at Anpara and not at Obra. No rule or order has been shown to support the contention. To the contrary, while the petitioner remained posted at Anpara the allotment order was passed by the House Allotment Committee which clearly implies that there was no legal bar in the allotment of the house at Obra even when the petitioner was posted at Anpara. Thus, the deduction of penal rent from the salary of the petitioner was also illegal. However, the petitioner is liable to pay rent after the date of his retirement till the date he vacates it. It is then urged that the respondents were bound to clear his T.A. bills which were submitted within time. However, it is urged on behalf of the respondent that it was time barred. 9. The allegation in para 37 that the bills were submitted in the office within time has not been denied. Further, the Executive Engineer in his letter dated 13.2.2002 addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) has not only admitted that the T.A. bills were submitted within time, but has also verified the same. Mere oral arguments that it was belated, has no legs to stand, therefore, this argument of the petitioner has also to be accepted. 10. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to 18% interest and penal cost because the respondents have withheld the amounts only to harass him and he suffered both financially and mentally. 11. The petitioner retired on 30.12.2002 and even though he was clamouring for refund of the penal rent and pay fixation, nothing was done. When this petition was filed, the following order was passed on 15.10.2003. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. 11. The petitioner retired on 30.12.2002 and even though he was clamouring for refund of the penal rent and pay fixation, nothing was done. When this petition was filed, the following order was passed on 15.10.2003. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. Notice on behalf of respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 has been accepted by Sri A.K. Mehrotra. All the respondents are granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have two weeks’ thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the 3rd week of December, 2003. 13. Petitioner has prayed for payment of retirement benefits and pension with 18% interest. He has also prayed for the return of penal rent deducted from his salary/retiral dues as well as certain T.A. bills. He has also prayed for his pay fixation in accordance with office memorandum dated 25.2.1989, according to which he claims that his pay should be fixed equivalent to his juniors. The matter of issuance of no dues certificate’ may be decided within a period of four weeks and that after deducting the dues, the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner. Petitioner shall also be made entitled to the provisional pension in accordance with rules. The deductions made shall be subject to the result of writ petition. 14. However, no orders were passed or the certificate issued and no retiral dues such as Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. was released and only provisional pension was paid. This conduct and attitude of the respondent is nothing but harassment. Whatever amount was outstanding should have been adjusted and rest could be paid to the petitioner, but more than three years have expired and yet no action. On these facts, the petitioner is entitled to compound interest @ 6% per annum and exemplary cost. 15. For the reason above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to same salary as was being paid to his junior Sri M.C. Kulshrestha with effect from the date the third pay scale was granted to Sri Kulshrestha. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has raised his grievance immediately after grant of the aforesaid third time scale but no action was taken, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 6% per annum compound interest from the said date till the date of actual payment. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has raised his grievance immediately after grant of the aforesaid third time scale but no action was taken, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 6% per annum compound interest from the said date till the date of actual payment. He will also be entitled to pensionary benefits on the aforesaid pay scale together with all other retiral dues. The respondents are further directed to forthwith clear the TA bills as already submitted and verified which is evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The petitioner will also be entitled to 6% per annum compound interest on all the amounts to be paid. The entire payments should be paid within six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to his cost which is assessed as Rs.10,000/-. ————