IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19825 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 09.11.2009 Mewa Singh Tung .... PETITIONER Versus Managing Committee, GSSDGS Khalsa College, Patiala and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Hari Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satbir Singh and Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocates, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to pay him interest on the delayed payment of arrears of gratuity. In the present case, the petitioner retired as Lecturer from the respondent college on 14.3.1998. In the year 1996, State of Punjab framed the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated Aided Colleges Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `Benefits Scheme, 1996'). Under the said scheme, the petitioner gave option on 24.2.1997 for the retiral benefits, which included pension and gratuity. But the said scheme was not implemented by the State and the petitioner retired on 14.3.1998. CWP No. 19825 of 2008 -2- After his retirement, when the petitioner was not released the retiral benefits, like gratuity, Provident Fund etc., the petitioner filed CWP No. 8103 of 2002, which was disposed of on 22.5.2002, with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 10.11.2001 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, by passing a speaking order. In compliance with the said direction, the respondent management, vide order dated 12.8.2002, decided the legal notice served by the petitioner and it was held that the petitioner was entitled for gratuity from the college funds and it was stated that if the petitioner had opted for pension scheme under the un-implemented Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1996, then he was required to execute an affidavit for withdrawing his option or to file an affidavit to the effect that in case, in future the Govt. makes payment of gratuity to the employees of the private aided colleges, then he will be bound to deposit the amount of gratuity in the account of college funds after getting the same from the Govt. Regarding the claim of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, it was observed that because of the non-implementation of the pension gratuity scheme by the Government and non-withdrawal of the option of scheme by the petitioner, it was not possible for the management of the respondent college to pay interest to the petitioner. The amount of Provident Fund, lying in the name of the petitioner, was ordered to be released with interest, only after furnishing the affidavit by him. In terms of the said order, the amount of gratuity and Provident Fund could not be released to the petitioner, as he did not furnish CWP No. 19825 of 2008 -3- the aforesaid affidavit. Lateron, the petitioner filed COCP No. 302 of 2003, which was disposed of on 21.3.2005, by passing the following order : “Counsel for the respondents – Khalsa College, Patiala states that the speaking order has been passed by the respondents. Learned counsel further states that the representation filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted a Demand Draft in the name of the petitioner Mewa Singh Tung for a sum of Rs. 300672/- and the same is handed over to the counsel of the petitioner. The acceptance of the demand draft is acknowledged by the counsel of the petitioner. As a speaking order has already been passed and the amount which was due to the petitioner has been paid in court, nothing survives in the present contempt petition, the same is disposed of.” When the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner did not agitate for payment of interest on the delayed payment. Lateron, he filed CM No. 11400 of 2005 for revival of the contempt proceedings on the ground that the respondents did not pay interest on the delayed payment. The said application was disposed of on 14.3.2008 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice with regard to the interest, by passing a speaking order. Vide order dated 28.6.2008, claim of the petitioner with regard to interest on the delayed payment was rejected on the ground that it is due to the fault of the petitioner in not withdrawing his option for payment of pensionary benefits, delay in payment of gratuity had occurred. Now, in the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the CWP No. 19825 of 2008 -4- said order claiming that he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of grauity. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the amount of Provident Fund has been paid to the petitioner with interest. The only dispute is with regard to the payment on interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. After considering the submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to issue direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Admittedly, when the petitioner was in service, the State of Punjab framed Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1996, but this scheme was not implemented, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the retiral benefits as per the said scheme. But the petitioner claimed these benefits under the Service Rules. The management was disputing the claim of gratuity, but ultimately this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to these benefits. In view of that direction, the management decided to release the gratuity and asked the petitioner to submit affidavit to the effect that in case, in future the Govt. makes payment of gratuity to the employees of the private aided colleges, then he will be bound to deposit the amount of gratuity in the account of college funds after getting the same from the Govt. It is admitted fact that the petitioner did not file the requisite affidavit, due to which some delay had occurred in payment of the amount of gratuity. In my opinion, the respondents cannot be said to be unjustified CWP No. 19825 of 2008 -5- in asking the petitioner to submit the aforesaid affidavit, so that it can be ensured that in future, if the petitioner gets pension and gratuity under the Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1996, then he will deposit the amount of gratuity received from the Government in the college funds, as the management of the respondent college had paid the amount of gratuity from the funds of the college. It is because of non filing of the affidavit by the petitioner, that there was delay in payment of gratuity. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Dismissed. November 09, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE