LPA No. 162 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 162 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 Samuel Masih …Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 22.05.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there is no intentional delay in making the payment of gratuity to the appellant and therefore, he would not be entitled to interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. 2. It has come on the record that there was initially dispute with regard to recovery of some amount by the respondent-State. On his approaching this Court, the recovery of amount was stayed. Thereafter, the respondent released the amount of gratuity asking the appellant to furnish indemnity bond. The indemnity bond was furnished on 20.11.2006 and the balance of withheld amount was released on 25.11.2006. 3. It has also come on the record that the appellant had retired on 28.02.2005 and out of total amount of gratuity, a sum of ` LPA No. 162 of 2011 -2- 54,802 was also released on 21.06.2006. It is in these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent to delay the payment. The delay has been held to be justified, which would not entitle him to earn interest. However, the learned Single Judge has granted interest on GPF and leave encashment from the period of one month after the retirement till the amount was actually paid as the statutory interest is payable on these payments and the learned Single Judge has issued directions granting interest @ 9%. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is obvious that there was dispute with regard to payment of amount of gratuity, which was eventually paid on 25.11.2006. Some recovery was to be made and on the appellant approaching this Court, even the rest of the amount of gratuity was also released to him on furnishing of an indemnity bond. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) March 25, 2011 JUDGE Atul