Disposed

Dass Ram Bhatia v. the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Dec 2021CWP/6684/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation to pay the petitioner's gratuity and leave encashment within six months. It granted differential interest for gratuity beyond this period based on statutory rates versus 9% annually, and 9% interest on leave encashment delays.

What did the court decide?

Payment of gratuity and leave encashment within six months; interest applicable as per judgment terms for delays.

Dass Ram Bhatia Vs the Himachal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 6^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

¶7

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6684 of 2021

¶8

Between:-

¶9

DASS RAM BHATIA S/O PADDU RAM BHATIA, R/O VPO JUGAHAN, SUNDER NAGAR, JUGAHAN (8), DISTT. MANDI, H.P., PIN: 175002

¶10

…...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SH. OM PARKASH GOEL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001

¶14

2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HPTDC, RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001

¶15

…...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition has been filed by petitioner Dass Ram

¶20

Bhatia, who retired from services of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism

¶21

Development Corporation Ltd. on 31.05.2021. According to the

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

petitioner, he was entitled to payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs.6,66,990/- and leave encashment of Rs.4,44,660/-, which were sanctioned to him by the respondents vide order dated 05.07.2021.

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 17^th July, 2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014 , titled Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and submits that the respondents should be directed to pay the retiral benefits together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date.

¶25

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the judgment passed in Nek Ram case (supra) pertains to the retired employee of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. He has also citied order passed by this Court on 23.11.2021 in CWP No.6034 of 2021 , titled Ram Lal vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & another, pertaining to retired employee of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. He submitted that so far as the gratuity is concerned, it always carries statutory interest alongwith interest till the time of actual payment and therefore, there is no question of any separate order for payment of interest being passed. Even then, this Court taking into consideration the huge financial difficulty, being faced by the respondent-Corporation granted the period of six months for payment of all other retiral

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

benefits/dues with the stipulation that if the same is not paid within that period, it shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum beyond the period of six months till actual payment.

¶28

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and considering the fact that gratuity and leave encashment are still to be paid to the petitioner and statutory interest is always payable to the petitioner on the amount of gratuity till the actual payment is made, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to make payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. For gratuity, the petitioner shall be entitled to differential amount of interest between the amount of interest statutorily payable to the petitioner as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and the interest of 9% per annum for the period of delay beyond six months. Payment of leave encashment beyond six months shall carry 9% interest per annum.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

( Sabina ) Judge

¶31

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge

¶32

December 06, 2021 Mukesh

Dass Ram Bhatia v. the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dass Ram Bhatia v. the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeet Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Anchal Singh Vs the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Divesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jagdish Chand Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Som Prabha Vs the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Murli Dhar Sharma Vs the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.