Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040749
CWP No.5319 of 2024 (O&M) 1
2024:PHHC:040749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
118
CWP No.5319 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2024
Ashok Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the
pending retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e. Rs.11,94,001/- on account
of leave encashment and gratuity along with interest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.04.2023, and he was released part of the retiral benefits on account
of gratuity and leave encashment on various dates as mentioned in para
6 of the petition but still, a sum of Rs.11,94,001/- is due.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full
Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040749
2024:PHHC:040749
and others, 1997(3) S.C.T. 468, to submit that where there is an
inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, the
employee will be entitled for interest.
4. He has further relied upon the judgment of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13)
RCR (Civil) 355, to submit that an employee will be entitled for the
interest on an amount which has been retained by the respondents
without any valid justification.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly, submits that for
claiming the said amount and interest on the delayed retiral dues, the
petitioner has already served a legal notice dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure
P-1), upon the respondents and he would be satisfied, if time bound
directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the same.
6. Notice of motion.
7. Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No.1 while Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, who is on
the panel of Department of Local Government, Punjab, has accepted
notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and have no objection to the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However,
learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that as a matter of fact,
Rs.11,94,001/- has been paid to the petitioner and only an amount of
Rs.10,38,954/- is due to be paid to the petitioner, which is the part
payment of gratuity and leave encashment.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record of the case.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040749
2024:PHHC:040749
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or
the claim being made by the petitioner in the present petition,
respondent No.1, is directed to consider and decide the claim made in
the legal notice dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) in accordance with
law, by passing a speaking order within a period of 03 months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is
found entitled, his claim be released within a period of 04 weeks
thereafter. In case, the respondents are of the opinion that the claim of
the petitioner merit rejection, the same be adjudicated upon by passing a
speaking order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, within the time as stipulated hereinabove.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
