Parveen Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Others

2025:HHC:9972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5339 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.

¶5

For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶8

following main reliefs:

¶9

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to release the revised higher amount of gratuity of Rs 1,60,779/- in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Revised Pay Rules and the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018, along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to release the arrears on account of the delayed payment along with interest @ 9% per annum.”

¶11

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed

¶12

to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by

¶13

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. While accepting notice on behalf of

¶14

2

¶15

respondents, Mr. Sharma, states that issue with regard to release of gratuity of the petitioner shall be placed before the Board of Directors at the earliest. Since it is not in dispute, rather stands admitted that petitioner is entitled to gratuity (Annexure P-2) to the tune of Rs. 1,60,779/- and release of the same cannot be delayed on ground that matter is required to be placed before Board of Directors. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2740 of 2022 titled as Mudit Kumar Vs. HPTDC alongwith connected matters (Annexure P-3), vide judgment dated 30.12.2022, directed the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner in that case in terms of Revised Pay Rules as well as Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018, within a period of three months. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:

¶16

“3. The respondent has filed its reply, wherein it has not denied the entitlement of the petitioner(s) to the reliefs, as sought for, and the only ground taken for not granting the benefit to the petitioner(s) is contained in para 4 of the reply, which reads as under:

¶17

“That the petitioner is entitled to the higher amount of gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended on 29.03.2018 by the Government of India, published in the Gazette of India (Annexure R-2). But the petitioner despite of being entitled cannot be granted the financial benefit exceeding the limit of 10,00,000/- because of the fact that the competent₹ authority of the Respondent Corporation i.e. the Board of Directors (BOD) in its meeting held on 29.11.2019 vide agenda item No. 154.7, that due to poor financial health of the HPTDC the item agenda has been deferred till the resources of the Corporation allow to bear the expenditure (Annexure R-3).

¶18

3

¶19

Hence, the financial benefits exceeding the capping of ₹10,00,000/- as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 amended on 29.03.2018 referred above can be given to the petitioner along with other similarly situated retirees only in case the same will be approved by the competent authority, i.e. the Board of Directors (BOD) of the respondent Corporation as per availability of funds in the future. It is further submitted that respondent Corporation is a semi-government commercial organization, where the benefits like revised pay scale from time to time at par with the Government Departments are being released to the eligible employees of the HPTDC, only after the prior approval of the competent authority, i.e. the Board of Directors. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter with respect to revised pay scale was placed before the Board of Directors of HPTDC in its meeting held on 05.09.2022, for granting of above benefits to the eligible employees of the respondent Corporation. It is also submitted that as and when the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation approves the adoption of revised pay scales effective from 01.01.2016, at par with the Himachal Pradesh Government Departments in HPTDC, the balance amount of leave encashment, if any, as per these pay scales, will be calculated and released to the petitioner, subject to availability of funds.”

¶20

Once the respondent accedes to the entitlement and eligibility of the petitioner(s) for grant of revised gratuity, the mere fact that the matter could not be placed before the competent authority, i.e. the Board of Directors, can be no ground to deny such benefit to the petitioner(s).

¶21

Accordingly, we deem it proper to dispose of these petitions by directing the respondent to release the revised higher amount of gratuity and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner(s), in terms of the Revised Pay Rules as well as the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2018, within a period of three months from today. Failing this, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization in

¶22

4

¶23

favour of the petitioner(s). The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

¶24

Since it is quite apparent from the bare reading of order dated 28.01.2023 (Annexure P-2), issued under the signatures of Financial Advisor & C.A.O., HRTC, that petitioner is entitled to amount, as detailed hereinabove, as gratuity, there appears to be no impediment in directing the respondents to ensure release of the same expeditiously.

¶25

Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure the release of gratuity, as detailed hereinabove, within a period of two months from today in favour of the petitioner, failing which, respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization in favour of the petitioner. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

April 09, 2025 (sunil)

¶27

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Parveen Kumar v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. the Hrtc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheela Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pushpa Rani Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jyoti Pathania Vs the State of Hp and Another

Brham Dutt Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dr Ikshit Singh Vs UOI and Others

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others