C.W.P. No. 20071 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20071 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: November 27, 2009 Harbans Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payment of pensionary benefits i.e. Gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,14,820/-, amount under the Group Insurance Scheme Rs. 18,626/-, Leave encashment Rs. 1,90,800/- and sum of Rs. 37,952/-, that was initially deducted, however, refunded later. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court praying for release of pensionary benefits alongwith 18% interest on account of delayed payment. Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue on 28.05.2007. In such C.W.P. No. 20071 of 2008 2 circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this second petition for a similar claim. 3. I have considered the issue. While dealing with the petition of the petitioner namely CWP No. 16589 of 2004 titled Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, the following order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2007:- “On the last date of hearing, ld. counsel for the petitioner informed this court, that the gratuity payable to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,37,450/- had been stopped by the respondents at the time of his retirement on 30.9.2003 on account of the fact, that the petitioner had wrongly released the gratuity to one Gurdip Singh, Inspector (Audit), and that, the inquiry pending against the aforesaid Gurdip Singh, Inspector (Audit) had since been completed, and the payment of gratuity with held from the petitioner, should now be released to the petitioner. Ld. counsel for the respondents stated, that he sought instructions in the matter, and the factual position asserted by the ld. counsel for the petitioner was found to be correct and accordingly a decision has been taken by the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity (Rs. 1,37,450/-) to the petitioner. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The respondents are directed to release the gratuity payable to the petitioner within one month from today. C.W.P. No. 20071 of 2008 3 Disposed of accordingly. Dated : 28.5.2007 Sd/- J.S. KHEHAR JUDGE Sd/- L.N. MITTAL JUDGE” 4. On a perusal of the order, it transpires that the respondents had assigned reasons for not releasing the retiral benefits. After the inquiry had been completed, the retiral benefits were released. The Division Bench, under the circumstances, had disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further informed the Court that within one month of the date of the order, the gratuity had also been paid. 6. I find that the petitioner had claimed interest in the earlier petition, which was not granted by the Court. In such circumstances, in this second petition, the same claim cannot be made. 7. Petition for claiming interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, accordingly, is dismissed. 27.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?