High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Professor A.R. Rajwade vs Registrar on 20 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Professor A.R. Rajwade vs Registrar on 20 November, 2008
Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2003                                     1




       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                  Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2003

                      Date of Decision: 20.11.2008



Professor A.R. Rajwade
                                                                 ...Petitioner
                                  Versus
Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh
                                                              ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present:    Mr. T.N. Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Anupam Gupta and Mr. Ashish Rawal,
            Advocates, for the respondent.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is being represented by Mr. T.N. Gupta,

Advocate.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

that the University be directed to pay leave encashment, admissible under

the revised rules along with interest on leave encashment, provident fund

and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner till the date of actual

payment.

It is submitted that petitioner was due to retire on attaining the

age of 60 years in the year 1999. He was allowed to continue in service till

attaining the age of 62 years i.e. upto 2001. It is not disputed that

petitioner has been paid his retiral benefits i.e. leave encashment, gratuity

and provident fund etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that no interest
Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2003 2

was given on the amount of leave encashment and gratuity, which was

paid after two years. It has been further stated that interest for one year on

Provident Fund alone has been paid and for second year no interest has

been paid on Provident Fund.

The University was not paying retiral benefits on the ground

that no final decision was taken whether the petitioner was to continue upto

the age of 62 or not. Since the petitioner has worked actually upto 62

years of age, now his only prayer is that interest be paid on the late

payment of gratuity, leave encashment, furlough etc. The present writ

petition was filed in the year 2003. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my

attention to Annexure P1, a decision of this court and stated that payment

was made only because of the orders passed by this Court.

Petitioner was working as senior member of Faculty of Panjab

University. He retired in the year 1999. On the resolution passed by the

University, he was allowed to continue for another two years i.e. upto year

2001. Their Provident Fund, leave encashment and other retiral benefits

were not paid as he was continuing in service. He along with others filed a

writ petition in this Court bearing CWP No. 16241 of 2000 in which it was

held as under:-

“In the meantime, we do not find any impediment in

the way of the University to release all the terminal

benefits to the petitioners on the assumption that they

had retired at the age of 60 years. Of course, the pay

which has already been drawn by the petitioners for

working for the period from 60 to 62 years cannot be

recovered. Let the terminal benefits accruing to the

petitioners on the assumption that they had retired at
Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2003 3

the age of 60 years be released to them by the

University before the next date of hearing. This

payment to the petitioners would be without prejudice

to their rights in the writ petition. Adjourned to May

31,2001.

Copy of this order, attested by the Special

Secretary be given to Mr. Anupam Gupta as well as to

Mr. Gurpreet Singh.

Sd/-

( R, S. Mongia )
Judge
April 25,2001
Sd/-

( K. C. Gupta )
Judge”

Now the grievance of the petitioner is that if he continued upto

the age of 62 years and on completion of 62 years, retiral benefits were

paid, no interest has been paid to him. It is stated that the Provident Fund

was lying deposited with the University and University was earning interest

thereupon and University has only remitted interest of one year i.e. from

1999 to 2000 and no interest has been paid on the Provident Fund which

was lying deposited with the University from the year 2000-2001.

I find justification in this prayer. Since the Provident Fund was

parked with the University, and interest was accruing to the University,

therefore, petitioner is entitled to the interest at rate which was then

permissible on the Provident Fund for the year 2000-2001.

So far as the prayer regarding awarding of interest on leave

encashment, gratuity etc. is concerned, same cannot be accepted because

petitioner was working, it was only after severance of the relationship with

University, the amount was to be paid to him.

Civil Writ Petition No. 11450 of 2003 4

In the above terms, the present writ petition is disposed off.

The payment of the interest of the Provident Fund only for one year i.e.

2000-2001 as per rate of interest permissible then be made within three

months from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
November 20, 2008
“mamta/DK”