CWP No.1673 of 1993 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1673 of 1993
Date of Decision: 9.7.2008
Mohinder Singh Sidhu ......Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ......Respondents.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Arvind Seth, Advocate, for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has claimed a writ in the nature of
mandamus for direction to the respondents to release the
gratuity amount; leave encashment; pension; provident fund and
other dues and to grant other consequential benefits.
It is the case of the petitioner that he attained the age
of superannuation after rendering more than 23 years and but
the pension case of the petitioner has not been finalised by the
respondents.
This Court on 16.7.1999 directed the respondents to pay
the reitral benefits subject to decision of Civil Writ petition No.2130
of 1986. Such retiral benefits were ordered to be released subject to
his giving undertaking that in the event of failure of the writ petition,
he will reimburse the department if there is any claim of the
department against the petitioner.
CWP No.1673 of 1993 (2)
On 23.8.2004, in an identical case i.e. CWP No. 1671
of 1993, the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made a
statement that the present writ petition is squarely covered by
the judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition
No.10676 of 1992, H.C. Gupta v. Punjab State Cooperative Bank
Ltd. And another, decided on 23.11.2001. However, it was
pointed out that the grant of interest @ 18% was excessive and
therefore, the petitioners should not be granted interest @ 18%.
The matter was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the
respondents, who sought time to obtain instructions as 18%
interest was granted to large number of similarly situated
employees.
It is thus, apparent that the issue raised in the petition
is the one which is covered by the decision of the aforesaid writ
petition. However, the grant of interest on delayed payment is matter
of discretion of the Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow
the present writ petition in the same terms as CWP No. 10676 of
1992. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a.
from the date the amount fell due till its payment. The directions be
complied with within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take
recourse to his legal remedies, if the amount of retiral benefits
including the amount of gratuity is not properly computed, before
the appropriate Forum.
With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
09-07-2008
ds