IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5380 of 2011 with CWPs No.5381, 8303, 8304 and 8309 of 2011. Date of Decision: 18th October, 2011. _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 5380 of 2011. Kanha Singh ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce & Processing Corporation Limited .…Respondent. 2. CWP No. 5381 of 2011. Devinder Singh Chauhan ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce & Processing Corporation Limited .…Respondent. 3. CWP No. 8303 of 2011. Roop Chand Chauhan ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce & Processing Corporation Limited .…Respondent. 4. CWP No. 8304 of 2011. Dayal Singh Roch ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce & Processing Corporation Limited .…Respondent. 5. CWP No. 8309 of 2011. Gian Chand Chauhan ….Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce & Processing Corporation Limited .…Respondent. - 2 - Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate in CWPs No.5380 and 5381 of 2011 and Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj and Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocates, in CWPs No.8303, 8304 and 8309 of 2011. Shri Madan Chauhan, MD of the respondent in person. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioners, in the above titled petitions, were the employees of the respondent-Corporation. Either their gratuity or leave encashment or both, were not released to them on their retirement. As such, they filed the present petitions for its release with interest seeking a further writ of mandamus to grant each of them the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 alongwith arrears of 51% D.A. 2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the present petitions, as such taken up together for its decision. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also Shri Madan Chauhan, Managing Director (MD) of the respondent-Corporation, who is present in the Court. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 3 - 4. There is no serious dispute with respect to the release of the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners by the respondent-Corporation. However, Shri Madan Chauhan, MD submitted that presently the Corporation is undergoing financial crunch and have decided to dispose of its assets situated outside the State in order to improve the financial position so that the respondent- Corporation is able to pay at least the gratuity and leave encashment to its retirees. He also submitted that the permission has been sought to dispose of the land situated at Chennai, which is a valuable piece of land and the tender is likely to be floated and it might bring substantial amount by disposing it of. He also submitted that in case some relaxation in the interest is given, it would be a great respite to the Corporation and at the same time, the Corporation would be able to make the payments to the present petitioners. He further assured that every endeavour shall be made to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners within a period of two months and in case the Corporation fails to pay the amount, the petitioner would be entitled to interest in accordance with law. - 4 - 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the representation and submissions made by Shri Madan Chauhan, MD, submitted that the petitioners, who have spent their life to serve the Corporation, agrees to this settlement so that the petitioners get their due and admissible amount at the earliest as it had already been delayed. 6. In view of above, there shall be a direction to the respondent-Corporation that every endeavour shall be made by them to pay the gratuity/leave encashment amount due and admissible to the petitioners on or before 31.12.2011 which shall not carry any interest, failing which the amount due shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12% from the date it fell due to each of the petitioners irrespective of the fact whether the respondents are able to sell out their property referred above, or not, it shall not be a cause not to release the aforesaid amount to the petitioners. 7. In so far as the third relief is concerned, the petitioners shall make representation on or before 18.11.2011 to the respondent-Corporation with respect to the grant of revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006 alongwith arrears of the D.A. as admissible and the respondent-Corporation shall - 5 - take a final decision in the matter on or before 31.3.2012. 8. With the aforesaid directions, all the petitions stand disposed of. Copy DASTI to the parties on usual terms. October 18, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.