IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 744 of 2011 Decided on: March 7, 2011. Amar Singh Parmar. ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved since he is not granted the interest for the withheld amount of the gratuity. It appears that he had filed the representation and the same has been dismissed as per Annexure P-8. But, it is seen that the petitioner himself had moved original application before the Tribunal wherein he had made the following two prayers:- “ a) Quash the impugned action of the respondents whereby they have withheld Rs. 1,42,650/- of the applicant being arbitrary, malafide and illegal; b) Direct the respondents to release withheld amount of Rs. 1,42,650/- to the applicant with interest thereon @ 18% from due date till realization and with all the consequential benefits and the interest and cost of this OA be made recoverable from the respondent No. 4.” 2. That original application, after being transferred to this Court and renumbered as CWP(T) No. 14606 of 2008 was dismissed as infructuous. The order reads as follows:- “Mr. P.P. Chauhan submits that the present petition has become infructuous with the passage f time. Consequently, the same is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.” 2 3. In view of the developments as above, the present writ petition is not maintainable, being barred by the principle of res-judicata and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. March 7, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (vs) Judge.