GURDAS RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing of the impugned letter/order dated 13.7.2012, Annexure P- 3, vide which recovery of Rs.97,442/- has been ordered to be made from the gratuity of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on 30.6.2011 after attaining the age of superannuation. The retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner. He then approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.9395 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2012, Annexure P-2, directing respondent No.3, Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Amritsar-I, to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of retiral benefits and pass a speaking order within a period of two months. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, order dated 13.7.2012, Annexure P-3, has been passed by the respondents, ordering recovery of Rs.97,442/-, to be deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner on the ground of wrong fixation of pay of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that said action of the respondents is not sustainable in the light of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2012 (8) SCC 417. His further contention is that even the amount due towards leave encashment and the General Provident Fund has been released to the petitioner after an inordinate delay. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.