IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18249 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 26, 2010 NACHHATTER PAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sanctioned amount of Gratuity. It has been brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner served the respondents from 1979 till the age of superannuation on 31.3.2009. There has been no complaint or departmental/vigilance inquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Payment of Gratuity was sanctioned by the office of Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, vide order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-1). It Civil Writ Petition No.18249 of 2009 2 has further been contended that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that from the reply filed in court today, it is evident that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 20.7.2010, therefore, the cause of action does not survive. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Order (Annexure P-1) makes it evident that on 29.5.2009 the office of Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, issued Certificate and Report-cum-Gratuity Payment Order to Principal, Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Phagwara, for release of Rs.3,50,000/- as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The same was, however, not released. As per short affidavit filed today in court, it has been brought out that in compliance of orders passed by this Court, Gratuity amount was released vide cheque dated 20.7.2010. It is not in dispute that the office of Accountant General sanctioned the release of Death-cum-Retirement gratuity amount. The same was, however, not released. No reason for delay in release of the amount has been given out by the respondents in their defence. Be that as it may, after sanction of the amount for release, there was no reason for the respondents to not to release the gratuity amount. It is settled law that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement. Every employee has a valuable right to the release of gratuity Civil Writ Petition No.18249 of 2009 3 on his retirement. Any culpable delay in settlement or disbursement thereof must be visited with penalty of payment of interest till the date of actual payment. Further, I find that the petitioner had to approach this Court for release of his rightful claim. The respondents have utilised the amount which legally should have been transmitted to the petitioner on sanction of the payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity on 29.5.2009. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest for the delayed payment of Gratuity amount. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with costs of Rs.5,000/-, as litigation expenses. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum for the delayed period. It is made clear that the respondent-State would be entitled to recover the amount of costs/litigation expenses, as quantified above, and interest from the officer/official found responsible for not releasing the Gratuity amount in time. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation for release of revised retiral benefits in view of Revised Pay Rules, 2009. The representation, if made within one month from today, be decided within three months thereof. July 26, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?