CWP No. 14829 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14829 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 21, 2009 Sh.Hasham Singh Kanwar ...... Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. OPS Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The gratuity of the petitioner was withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately by order Annexure R-1 dated 22.1.2007 the petitioner was exonerated and the charges were dropped after regular inquiry. Thereafter the gratuity amount of the petitioner (which should have been paid within 30 days of retirement of the petitioner viz. 31.03.2004) was ultimately released to him on 09.05.2008. The claim of the petitioner is that having been exonerated he should be CWP No. 14829 of 2008 2 granted interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings nothing could be paid to him and thereafter there has not been so much delay in payment of gratuity so as to justify the imposition of interest. In my opinion the matter is not as simple as has been sought to be made by learned Senior DAG. The net effect of these entire proceedings is that in fact the petitioner was not guilty of the charges and, therefore, it has to be held that the payment of gratuity was not validly withheld. In the circumstances the question which arises is whether in equity the petitioner has to be put back in the same position as far as possible where he would have been had these unproved charges not been levelled against him. The answer to this question has to be in the positive. Not only this it is also not in dispute that amount of gratuity to which the petitioner was entitled lay with the respondents who utilised the same for four years. In the circumstances the claim of the petitioner for interest is justified. Consequently the respondents are directed to pay interest on the delayed amount viz. 2, 67, 352/- w.e.f. 1.5.2004 at the rate of 8% p.a. till the date of payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled to further interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the amount of interest till the date of payment. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 21, 2009 sunita