Disposed

Sukh Pal v. Hptdc and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Dec 2021CWP/7287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired employee of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. seeking payment of gratuity. The Court directed the respondents to pay the pending gratuity within six months and awarded differential statutory interest on the amount beyond that period.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay gratuity within six months and differentially account for statutory interest beyond that period.

Sukh Pal Vs Hptdc and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 10^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.7287 of 2021

¶8

Between:-

¶9

SUKH PAL, SON OF LATE SHRI HARI SHARAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.6/82, VILLAGE JHAREDA, DELHI CANTT-10. (BY SH. OM PARKASH GOEL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶10

…...PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

…...RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SH. VAIBHAV, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

This petition coming on for admission this day,

¶16

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition has been filed by petitioner Sukh Pal, who

¶19

retired from services of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. on 30.11.2020. According to the petitioner, gratuity

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

to the tune of Rs.7,77,169/- was calculated and sanctioned to him by the respondents vide order dated 22.01.2021. He has also submitted that leave encashment has already been paid to him.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 17th 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.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

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.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the aforesaid orders passed by this Court and considering the fact that gratuity is 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 due amount of gratuity 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.

¶27

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

¶28

( Sabina ) Judge

¶29

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) December 10, 2021 Judge Himalvi

Sukh Pal v. Hptdc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Pal v. Hptdc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Azad Vs Abhinav Saklani and Ors.

Amar Chand Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Narpat Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Tulsi Ram Vs Himuda and Others

Charan Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Joginder Singh Vs the District Horticulture Officer Chamba and Another