IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 6, 2010 Arjan Dass …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 23.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim of the petitioner-appellant for grant of interest on the amount of gratuity by dismissing C.M. No. 5277 of 2009 in CWP No. 12496 of 2001. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 30.10.1975 the petitioner- appellant was appointed as an Octroi Clerk for a period of two months. He continued on ad hoc basis with breaks of one or two days after every 89 days. On 3.9.1977, the respondent Municipal Council, Ferozepur, passed a resolution confirming the services of the petitioner-appellant. However, on 9.12.1977 his services were terminated. He filed CWP No. 3625 of 1978 before this Court, L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.5.1984. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal, bearing LPA No. 584 of 1984. On 21.7.1994, the Letters Patent Bench quashed the order dated 9.12.1977 and directed that the petitioner-appellant be reinstated in service. He was also held entitled to all ancillary benefits i.e. seniority etc. except back wages because he had not worked during all this period. Pursuant to the order passed by the Letters Patent Bench he was reinstated in service and retired from service on 30.4.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that before his retirement the petitioner- appellant filed CWP No. 9572 of 2000 seeking quashing of an order dated 30.3.2000 passed by the Examiner, Local Fund Account, Local Government Department, denying him the benefit of Pension Contributory Fund from the date of his appointment till his reinstatement in service in the year 1994. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant was that from the date of termination of his services in the year 1977 till his reinstatement in the year 1994, no provident fund was deducted and no matching provident fund was contributed by the employer in his Contributory Provident Fund account on the pretext that the Letters Patent Bench has denied him the back wages. After his retirement, the petitioner-appellant filed yet another writ petition, namely, CWP No. 12496 of 2001 claiming release of retrial benefits in the shape of leave encashment and gratuity along with interest @ 18% per annum. 4. Both the aforementioned writ petitions were clubbed together and the learned Single Judge decided the same by a common order dated 21.10.2008. The learned Single Judge dismissed CWP No. 9572 of 2000 by holding as under:- “ It is not disputed that while deciding the LPA, when the petitioner was re-instated, he was denied back wages. Contribution to the provident fund is to be made from the salary. Therefore, prayer of 2 L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 the petitioner that clock be put back and he is ready to pay his share of provident fund along with interest and the employer be directed to pay its share in the contributory provident fund, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner had not discharged his duties. Petitioner was deemed to have been in service from the date of his termination but the benefit, which was contingent and dependent upon the salary, cannot be granted to the petitioner, as he had agreed and not pressed his prayer for back wages. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, whatever the actual amount of provident fund has been contributed by the petitioner, the same be reimbursed to him within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.” 5. So far as the other writ petition, namely, CWP No. 12496 of 2001 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that the gratuity has to accrue to the petitioner-appellant and he has also been held entitled to leave encashment of the earned leave which he has gathered during the course of service. Therefore, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition with the direction that the amount to which the petitioner-appellant is found entitled be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 6. Thereafter the petitioner-appellant filed an application being C.M. No. 5277 of 2009 in CWP No. 12496 of 2001 seeking grant of interest @ 18% per annum on the gratuity amount by amending the order dated 21.10.2008 passed in CWP No. 12496 of 2001. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 23.4.2009. 7. Mr. Surinder Garg has vehemently argued that once the learned Single Judge himself has held that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to gratuity as 3 L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 well as leave encashment, therefore, he is also entitled to grant of interest on the amount of gratuity and leave encashment which has been wrongly withheld and denied by the respondents. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RSJ 318. 8. Despite notice no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel has also not been able to seriously dispute that law laid down by the Full Bench in R.S. Randhawa’s case (supra) 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the matter is no longer res integra and squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of R.S. Randhawa (supra). Once the petitioner-appellant has been held entitled to payment of gratuity and leave encashment then he must also be paid interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner-appellant deserves to be allowed. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal succeeds. Order dated 23.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to CWP No.12496 of 2001 is modified to the extent that the petitioner-appellant would also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of amount of gratuity and leave encashment from the date of superannuation i.e. 30.4.2001 till realisation. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE December 6, 2010 4 L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 Pkapoor 5 C.M. No. 1516-17 of 2010 in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2010 Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the non-applicant-respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. C.M. No. 1516 of 2010: This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 466 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the application was issued. However, neither any reply has been filed nor the learned State counsel has raised any serious objection. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, delay of 466 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 1517 of 2010: C.M. allowed as prayed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 6, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor