CWP No.11451 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 23.11.2010 Om Parkash ...Petitioner VERSUS Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner retired on 31.3.2008 as Assistant Foreman from the respondents-Nigam. His retiral benefits were not paid. Apart from that, the petitioner also lodged a medical claim for replacement of Denture and 2nd ACP benefit. On account of non-payment of the dues referred to here-in- above, the petitioner was forced to file CWP No.13582 of 2009. This writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.9.2009 directing the respondents to consider and decide the advance legal notice dated 10.7.2009 served by the petitioner, preferably within three months. It CWP No.11451 of 2010 2 seems that this direction was not complied with which again forced the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings before this Court. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, order dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure P- 14) came to be passed by the respondents declining the claim for retiral and other benefits on account of some recoveries allegedly pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the aforesaid order. It is under these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1.1.2010 (Annexure P-14). During the pendency of this writ petition, all retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released vide different cheques as detailed in paragraph 2 of the written statement in the months of July to August, 2010. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the quantum of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, he has no objection to the quantum already released. However, he is aggrieved of non-payment of the interest on the delayed payments of all the claims. In the reply, the respondents while admitting the claim, have stated that recoveries shown against the petitioner were wrongly reflected under some misconception. It is stated that as a matter of fact, though recoveries were against some other employee- Om Parkash, however, Chief Auditor, Rohtak, made recoveries from the petitioner. It is clearly established that non-payment of dues could not have been attributed to the petitioner under any circumstances. The claim of interest has, however, been denied only on the ground that it is normal routine which takes for processing the claim after retirement. It is a serious matter that respondents take years together to process the claim of retiral benefits of the employees. Such a stand is totally unjustified and cannot be appreciated. CWP No.11451 of 2010 3 From the reply itself, it is stated that the delay in payment of retiral and other benefits is on account of either negligence on the part of the officials of the respondents or may be a deliberate action. Without going into this aspect, the petitioner cannot be denied the interest. This petition is accordingly allowed to the extent interest on the delayed payment. Respondents are directed to pay interest. The petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest on delayed payment of gratuity and Provident Fund and other delayed payments of retiral and other benefits, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum after one month from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. Let the entire interest be calculated and paid to the petitioner within three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.11. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4