IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 14379/2008 Decided on:28.6.2010 _____________________________________________ Hari Singh. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate vice Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was engaged as a Driver on daily wage basis in the year 1987. He was regularized with effect from 1.5.1988. He retired as Driver from Mandi Depot on 20.6.2005 on medical ground. He was declared permanently unfit to continue in service. He was relieved on 20.6.2005. Necessary ‘no due certificate’ was issued in his favour. He made representation to the respondent-corporation to release provisional pension and DCRG etc. He also served a legal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the respondent-corporation in the month of March, 2006. The case of the respondent-corporation, in a nutshell, is that a sum of Rs. 49,910/- stood released, as compensation of balance service in favour of the petitioner on 20.6.2006. Mr. K.C. Sankhayan has strenuously argued that respondent-corporation has not paid a sum of Rs. 48,826/- towards the gratuity from total amount of Rs. 98,736/-. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has argued that since the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 49,910/- towards balance service, a sum of Rs. 48,826/- was effected from his gratuity vide office order dated 1.7.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner was retired on medical grounds on 20.6.2005. He was relieved. He was paid a sum of Rs. 49,910/- by way of compensation of balance service on 20.6.2005. A sum of Rs. 98,736/- was sanctioned by the Financial Advisor and CAO on 24.6.2006. However, respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 48,826/- from the amount of gratuity. This was not permissible under law. Petitioner has earned gratuity after rendering a number of years service required under rules. The basis of deduction of a sum of Rs. 48,826/- from the DCRG only on the ground that 3 he had been paid a sum of Rs. 49,910/-, as compensation towards remaining service was arbitrary. The payment of compensation was for the remaining services since the petitioner had been declared unfit. Gratuity has been earned by the petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, after putting in a number of years service. Accordingly, in view of the observations, made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to release a sum of Rs. 48,826/- to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% with effect from 20.6.2005. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 28.6.2010 *awasthi*