HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11861 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.09.2011 **** Rajesh Kumar Bhagat . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a retiree whose only claim which still survives for consideration pertains to the non-payment of Gratuity. It is alleged that the petitioner’s Gratuity has been withheld on the plea that he did not deposit the penal rent assessed against him. The petitioner’s case on the other hand is that the penal rent assessed vide Annexure P8 was duly deposited by him vide receipts Annexure P12 and which is duly acknowledged by the respondents vide Annexure P13. (2). In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 – Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Government of Punjab to verify the above-stated plea taken by the petitioner and in case CWP No.11861 of 2000.doc - 2 – it is found that the penal rent as assessed by the competent authority has already been deposited by him, the withheld amount of Gratuity be released in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 7% p.a. However, if the competent authority finds that a part of the penal rent is yet to be deposited by the petitioner, a speaking order in that regard shall be passed. (3). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 02.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge