Chander Pal Singh vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 15 October, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                              C.W.P. No. 15047 of 2008
                                        DATE OF DECISION : 14.10.2009

Chander Pal Singh

                                                           .... PETITIONER

                                  Versus

Haryana State Electricity Board and another

                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,
            for the respondents.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner was working as Loco Foreman in the Panipat

Thermal Plant. On 31.1.1997, he retired from service, on attaining the age of

superannuation. After his retirement, some of the retiral benefits were not

paid to him. An amount of Rs. 46,221/- was deducted from the gratuity of

the petitioner. He challenged the said deduction from his gratuity by filing

CWP No. 11635 of 1999, which was allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- vide

judgment dated 30.5.2005, passed by this Court, while coming to the

conclusion that the aforesaid deduction was wrongly made, and the

respondents were directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner. The

said judgment was challenged by the respondents by filing SLP. The
CWP No. 15047 of 2008 -2-

judgment dated 30.5.2005 with regard to the refund of the aforesaid amount

to the petitioner was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the

order imposing costs was set aside. It is admitted position that the aforesaid

amount of Rs. 46,221/- has been refunded to the petitioner.

In the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming interest on

three amounts i.e. arrears of leave to the tune of Rs. 11,536/-, balance of

gratuity of Rs. 4,536/- and balance of arrears of pension of Rs. 26,833/-. All

these three payments were made to him in March, 2008, i.e. after a delay of

11 years.

The respondents in their written statement as well as the Chief

Engineer, who is present in Court, could not give any justification for

making the aforesaid payment after a long delay. Keeping in view the fact

that in the instant case, the delay is more than 11 years and no justification

has been given, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition and direct

the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the aforesaid

delayed payments.

Ordered accordingly.

October 14, 2009                           ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                 JUDGE