IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1680 of 2008. Reserved on 27.11.2008. Decided on: 10.12.2008. __________________________________________________ Tule Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr.Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For respondent No. 2 & 3. : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Timber Watcher in the Forest Department in the year 1965. He worked in the Forest Department up to 1975. He was transferred to H.P. Forest Corporation in the year 1975. He retired on 31.5.2005. He has been paid gratuity amounting Rs. 2,53,588/- after calculating his emoluments considering 29 years 6 months pay for calculation of the determination of the gratuity. He has not been granted one increment in the higher pay scale on completion of eight years service on 1.10.2004 under Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The stand of the respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 only entitled to gratuity worked out on the basis of 16.5 months salary average on the basis of clause 3.6 of service bye-laws of H.P. State Forest Corporation amended by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 30.9.1992 vide memorandum No. 113. As far as one increment is concerned, the case of the respondent-Corporation is that the Departmental Promotion Committee had already been held on 19.9.2008 and the decision will be taken shortly. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood has strenuously argued that his client has not been paid any gratuity for the period w.e.f. 10.5.1965 to 1975 by the State Government and thus, clause 3.6 of service bye-laws dated 30.9.1992 is not applicable. His further contention is that once the Departmental Promotion Committee has been convened by the respondent-Corporation, the final decision should have taken within a reasonable period. Mr. Vijender Katoch appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 has submitted that the petitioner is only entitled to gratuity on the basis of 16.5 months salary and not 20 months. His further contention is that the decision will be taken within a reasonable period on the basis of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 19.9.2008. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The petitioner had worked for 10 years and 6 months with the Forest Department. He was permanently absorbed in the Forest Corporation w.e.f. 25.11.1975. He has not been paid any gratuity by the State Government for the period he has worked with the State Government. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce clause 3.6 dated 30.9.1992 which reads thus: 3 “The gratuity for the actual service rendered in Corporation is to be worked out separately as per this clause and the sum total of this amount and the gratuity already received from the Central Government, or State Government, as the case may be consequent on permanent absorption should not exceed the amount that have been admissible had the employee continued in Government service and retired in the same pay which he drew on retirement from the Corporation.” The respondent-Corporation has misconstrued clause 3.6 while denying the gratuity to the petitioner for complete 20 months. Clause 3.6 would be applicable only in those cases where the incumbent who was earlier working in either Central Government or State Government has been released gratuity. In the present case, the petitioner has not been paid any gratuity by the State Government and he was entitled to get gratuity on the basis of 20 years 6 months pay and not 16.5 months’ pay as worked out by the Corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to gratuity on the basis of complete 20 months amounting Rs. 53,792/- over and above the amount of gratuity i.e. Rs. 2,53,588/-. As far as one increment is concerned under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, the Court has noticed that the Departmental Promotion Committee had already been convened by the Corporation itself on 19.9.2008. The respondents are required to take final decision on the basis of the Departmental Promotion Committee at the earliest since the petitioner had already retired in the year 2005. The petitioner has not been awarded any interest on a sum of Rs. 2,53,588/- sanctioned by the respondent-Corporation on 24.3.2008. The justification given by the respondent-Corporation for denying the interest is not justifiable. The petitioner had been exonerated in the disciplinary 4 proceedings on 16.2.2008. Their Lordships’ of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have granted in Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. 2000 (4) SCT 267 simple interest at the rate of 18% w.e.f. date of retirement till the date of payment due to delay. Their Lordships have held as under: “In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement i.e. 31st August 1997 till the date of payment.” In the present case also, there is no justification for denying the interest. Consequently, the petitioner is held entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the total amount of Rs. 3,07,380/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 53,792/- over and above a sum of Rs. 2,53,588/- already released towards gratuity. The entire sum of Rs. 3,07,380/- shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The respondents are further directed to take final decision on the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 19.9.2008 and to grant one increment to the petitioner after completion of eight years service on 1.10.2004. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 10, 2008. (cr)