Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMI CHAND versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ami Chand v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-4070-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 2752 (1 May 2006)

CWP NO.4070 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.4070 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 09.05.2006

Ami Chand ....Petitioner

Versus

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 )

Judge

( P.S. Patwalia )

May 09, 2006. Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.