Allowed

R.S.Chhikara etc. v. State of Hy.Etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2013CWP/8680/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a miscellaneous case regarding retirement benefits, holding that petitioners were entitled to gratuity and leave encashment based on a precedent. Interest was awarded at 7.5% for leave encashment in the absence of a specific rule.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; petitioners granted interest at 7.5% on leave encashment claims.

R.S.Chhikara etc. Vs State of Hy.Etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 8680 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 8680 of 2003 Date of decision March 2, 2013

¶5

R. S. Chhikara s/o Sh. O. P. Chhikara and others

¶6

....... Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manruchi , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. H. S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

None for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶14

¶15

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶16

To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶17

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶18

The petitioners' entitlement to the reliefs in the

¶19

writ petition are two pronged i) the petitioners are entitled to gratuity as it was under the Gratuity Act. ii) They are entitled to leave encashment. Both the reliefs have been granted to similarly situated employees in a judgment in CWP No.16992 of 1997 and brought to file as Annexure P-8. At the previous occasion on 21.11.2005 a Bench of this Court had adjourned the case sine die to await the decision of the Supreme Court where it was said that the State had gone on a appeal against the adjudication made relating to the

¶20

CWP No. 8680 of 2003

¶21

¶22

entitlements referred to above. The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the State in Civil Appeal No.4112 of 2003 dated 12.11.2009.

¶23

Learned Senior counsel argues that the petitioners' case is fully covered through the judgment in CWP No.16992 of 1997 and particularly in view of the fact that the State's appeal has been dismissed. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Since all the workmen are said to have retired in the year 1992 to 2001 and the payments of gratuity accruals and leave encashment must have been made soon after their respective dates of superannuation, the petitioner should be allowed the benefit of interest also. As regards the interest for gratuity it will be covered by the provisions of the Gartuity Act itself and as regards the leave encashment if there is no rule the petitioners will be entitled to interest at 7.5% from the date of the respective dates of superannuation till the date of payment.

¶24

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶25

March 2 , 2013 archana

R.S.Chhikara etc. v. State of Hy.Etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Chhikara etc. v. State of Hy.Etc.

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

Aloka Chhabra Vs Mani Chhabra

Mani Chhabra Vs Alok Chhabra

United Church of Northern Trust Association and Anr. Vs Balbir Kaur and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Gram Panchayat

(O&M) Urmila & Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Another

(O&M) State of Haryana Vs Chander Bhan.