CWP No.16729 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 17.9.2010 R.L.Gandhi ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner retired as Secretary, Karnal Improvement Trust, Karnal on 31.7.1992. The entire amount of gratuity was not paid to the petitioner for a considerable period. Aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed CWP No.14849 of 1993. This writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.2.1994 with the following directions:- “Admittedly, the gratuity has been paid after a lapse of one year and seven months, whereas statutorily it is payable within two months from the date of retirement. The counsel for the respondent CWP No.16729 of 2010 2 no.1 states that the amount of gratuity could have been paid to the petitioner only if respondent no.1 had sanctioned the same. The gratuity has been paid within two months from granting of sanction by respondent no.1 and it is the respondent-state who is responsible for delayed sanction. No reason attributable to the petitioner has been put forth for delayed payment or sanction. In view of this we consider that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount of gratuity fell due till its payment. The interest shall be borne by the authority concerned responsible for delayed payment. The interest shall be paid within three months from the date of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” It is admitted that a sum of Rs.41700/- was paid to the petitioner on 24.5.1994 alongwith interest of Rs.6463/- at the rate of 12% per annum for the period w.e.f. 1.8.1992 to 25.4.1994, as directed by this Court. The balance amount of gratuity in the sum of Rs.34605/- was also paid on 7.4.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that interest on this amount of Rs.34605/- at the rate of 12% was not paid within the period of three months. The petitioner continued to make representations claiming the interest payable on this amount. The interest on the aforesaid amount comes CWP No.16729 of 2010 3 to Rs.2026/-. In fact the petitioner is claiming interest on the delayed payment of interest. The claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected for two reasons- firstly this Court vide order dated 21.2.1994 passed in CWP No.14849 of 1993 directed the respondents to pay the balance amount of gratuity with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within three months. There is no direction for payment of any amount or compensation if the judgment is not carried out after three months. In other words, no penal interest or interest over interest has been allowed to this court. The judgment has attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner was at liberty to seek appropriate remedy immediately, after expiry of three months which the petitioner did not avail and waited till the amount of interest is paid. If there is a lapse on the part of respondents, the petitioner is equally responsible for not approaching the Court in contempt. Apart from above, the amount of interest is paltry sum of Rs.2026/-. Filing of this petition to claim interest on the delayed payment of interest seems to be unjustified. If the petitioner had approached the Civil Court, perhaps the limitation would have come in his way. This petition is highly belated and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 17.9. 2010 MFK