Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sukh Pal vs Pradesh And Others And Submits ... on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7287 of 2021
Between:-
SUKH PAL,
SON OF LATE SHRI HARI SHARAN,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.6/82,
VILLAGE JHAREDA, DELHI CANTT-10.
r ......PETITIONER
(BY SH. OM PARKASH GOEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001
2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
HPTDC, RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. VAIBHAV, ADVOCATE ON
BEHALF OF SH. NARESH KAUL,
ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day,
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by petitioner Sukh Pal, who
retired from services of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd. on 30.11.2020. According to the petitioner, gratuity
to the tune of Rs.7,77,169/- was calculated and sanctioned to him by
the respondents vide order dated 22.01.2021. He has also
.
submitted that leave encashment has already been paid to him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment dated 17th July, 2014, passed by this Court in
CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others and submits that the respondents should be
directed to pay the retiral benefits together with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the due date.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents has submitted that the judgment passed in Nek
Ram case (supra) pertains to the retired employee of Himachal
Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. He has also citied order
passed by this Court on 23.11.2021 in CWP No.6034 of 2021, titled
Ram Lal vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd. & another, pertaining to retired employee of
Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. He
submitted that so far as the gratuity is concerned, it always carries
statutory interest alongwith interest till the time of actual payment
and therefore, there is no question of any separate order for
payment of interest being passed. Even then, this Court taking into
consideration the huge financial difficulty, being faced by the
respondent-Corporation granted the period of six months for
payment of all other retiral benefits/dues with the stipulation that if
the same is not paid within that period, it shall be paid alongwith
.
interest at the rate of 9% per annum beyond the period of six
months till actual payment.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perusing the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and considering
the fact that gratuity is still to be paid to the petitioner and statutory
interest is always payable to the petitioner on the amount of gratuity
till the actual payment is made, we deem it appropriate to direct the
respondents to make payment of due amount of gratuity to the
petitioner within a period of six months from today. For gratuity, the
petitioner shall be entitled to differential amount of interest between
the amount of interest statutorily payable to the petitioner as per the
Payment of Gratuity Act and the interest of 9% per annum for the
period of delay beyond six months.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
( Sabina )
Judge
( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
December 10, 2021 Judge
Himalvi
