A retired employee of HPTDC sought payment of outstanding gratuity. The Court directed respondents to pay the due amount within six months and awarded differential interest for the delay beyond that period.
Payment of gratuity within six months; differential interest for delay beyond six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7069 of 2021
Between:-
PARKASH CHAND THAKUR SON OF SHRI PANJKU RAM, VILL. BHANWAR, P.O. JAMNI, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTT. MANDI, H.P. PIN 175049
…..PETITIONER
(BY SH. OM PARKASH GOEL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001.
2. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, HPTDC, RITZ ANNEXE, SHIMLA-171001.
…..RESPONDENTS
( BY SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day,
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina , passed the following:
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by petitioner Parkash Chand Thakur, who retired from services of the Himachal
2
Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. on 30.09.2019. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to payment of gratuity to the tune of Rs.7,21,689/- which was sanctioned to him by the respondents vide order dated 25.11.2020.
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
3
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 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.
4
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Sabina) Judge
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge
December 07, 2021
(R.Atal)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are directed to pay the due gratuity to the retired petitioner.
Whether differential interest is payable on the delayed grant of gratuity payments.
Whether interest at 9% per annum is claimed as separate payment or deducted from statutory interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parkash Chand Thakur
Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Sabina
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
