High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ami Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-4070-2006  RD-P&H 2752 (1 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.4070 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 09.05.2006
Ami Chand ....Petitioner
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA
PRESENT: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab,
for the respondents.
J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)
Learned counsel for the respondents has produced in Court today a treasury cheque in the sum of Rs.1,65,561/- payable to the petitioner.
It is pointed out that the instant payment is on account of gratuity payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid cheque has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
While accepting the aforesaid treasury cheque, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment at the hands of the respondents. In this behalf it is pointed out that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1998 and that the instant amount on account of gratuity is being released to the petitioner after a lapse of almost eight years.
In so far as the issue of interest on account of delayed payment CWP NO.4070 of 2006 2
of retiral benefits is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that criminal prosecution was pending against the petitioner and that he has been acquitted therefrom only as recently as on 16.8.2004. Thereafter by an order dated 12.7.2005 the amount payable to the petitioner on account of gratuity was sanctioned. The sanctioned amount could not be released to the petitioner on account of a technical objection raised by the Treasury Officer.
On the revalidation of the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner, the cheque in question has been brought to this Court without any further delay.
Taking into consideration the factual position noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied that there was no intentional or deliberate delay in the release of the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. In view of the above, we are of the view that the petitioner's plea for interest on account of delayed payment of retiral benefits is not sustainable in law.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
( J.S. Khehar )
( P.S. Patwalia )
May 09, 2006. Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.