Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukand Lal vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2000
Author: V Bali
Bench: A B Saharya, V Bali


V.K. Bali, J.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners have challenged action of the respondents withholding payment of part of the gratuity. The said amounts arc stated to have been withheld on account of alleged excess payment of Border House Rent Allowance/House Rent Allowance (B.H.R.A./ HRA).

3. No material has been placed before us to show any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioners for the alleged excess payment. Since the petitioners have retired from service, for no fault on their part, no part of the gratuity could be withheld.

4. The question involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in CWP No. 1141 of 1997 Jagjit Singh v. Punjab State and others) decided on April 11, 1997 and CWP No. 16258 of 1996 S.D. Taneja v. State of Haryana, decided on April 1, 1997.

5. The action of the respondents in recovering/withholding payment of the said amount of gratuity is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the balance amount of gratuity to each of the petitioners within eight weeks from the date when certified copy of this order is made available. In case of delay, the balance payment shall be made with interest at the rate of 10% per annum upto the date of actual payment.

A copy of this order may be given on the Advocate General, Punjab, dasti.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.

6. Petition allowed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.183 seconds.