C.W.P No. 7697 of 1988 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 7697 of 1988 Date of decision : April 15, 2009 Dr. Dev Raj Singh Gill, HESI ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others. ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gurdip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The original petitioner filed this writ petition claiming his retiral benefits. Subsequently, most of the retiral benefits were released and the dispute which now remains is only with regard to the grant of personal pay on account of having acquired higher qualification and the entitlement of the petitioner for leave-encashment. As per the policy regarding grant of personal pay, Annexure P-1 read with Annexure P-2, four increments were to be granted for a period of five years on the acquisition of Doctorate or Post Doctorate qualification subject to the condition that at-least half of the C.W.P No. 7697 of 1988 ::2:: Annual Confidential Reports earned during five years preceding the date of eligibility were at-least average. The petitioner got his Ph.D decree on 23.2.1982. His service record for the preceding five years is as follows :- “1976-77 Good 1977-78 Average (Containing adverse remarks) 1978-79 Average(Containing adverse remarks) 1979-80 Average 1980-81 Average” The defence taken for denying the benefits is that since in two ACRs the integrity of the petitioner had been classified as doubtful, it cannot be said that he met the parameters for being granted the personal pay. A perusal of Annexures P-1 and P-2 reveals that there is no such classification envisaged therein. As mentioned above, as per the policies, at-least half of the Annual Confidential Reports had to be average. The petitioner does meet these parameters and, thus, would be entitled for the grant of personal pay. As regards entitlement of the petitioner for the leave- encashment, the defence taken is that since the petitioner was compulsorily retired, he was not entitled for the said relief. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three Single Bench decisions of this Court reported as Amar Singh Superintendent (retired) Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab at Chandigarh vs The Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab and others, 1986(1) SLR 686, O.P.Vijh, Retd. Executive Engineer vs The State of Haryana and others, 1988(1) SLR 740, and Rajinder Parkash Seth vs State of Haryana, 2003(3) RSJ 688. In all the above cases, it has been held that an order of pre- C.W.P No. 7697 of 1988 ::3:: mature/compulsory retirement would not by itself dis-entitle an employee from getting such benefit. No contrary judgment has been brought to my notice by counsel for the respondents. He only urged that on 6.9.1988 when notice of motion was issued the following order was passed :- “ Cites 1988(1) SLR 741 to contend that even if the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service, he was entitled to the payment of the leave encashment. Notice of motion for November 29, 1988.” Counsel for the respondents states that, thus, it must be construed that the petitioner's prayer would be limited to the question of grant of leave-encashment. It cannot be lost sight of that till that stage no benefits had been granted to the petitioner and merely because the above said statement was made by counsel for the petitioner would not mean that the petitioner was not entitled to the personal pay. It may also be noticed that had the respondents seriously contested the above contention, they would not have released the Provident Fund/Gratuity etc. to the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to compute the benefits available to the petitioner and pay the same within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. As regards the claim of the petitioner for interest, I feel that the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed interest on the amount of leave-encashment. Resultantly, the payment of leave-encashment would be made to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% p.a from the date C.W.P No. 7697 of 1988 ::4:: of his retirement till the date of actual payment. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 15, 2009. JUDGE `kk'