GURSHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was serving as Major in Medical Regiment had requested for his premature retirement which was accepted on 17.3.1998 (Annexure P.2). He was accordingly prematurely retired on 14.6.1998. He applied for release of retiring gratuity on 24.9.1998 (Annexure P.3). However, no action was taken for about two years. On 23.2.2000, respondent No. 3, Additional Directorate General Personal Service addressed a letter to respondent No. 2 i.e. Pr.C.D.A. (Pensions) Allahabad to do the needful ( Annexure P.4). Thereafter a reminder was also sent on 28.4.2000. On 9.7.2003 another letter was written by respondent No. 2 requiring the petitioner to send the requisite documents which was again repeated by another letter dated 26.8.2003. The petitioner was forced to sent a reply that despite writing repeatedly, the gratuity amount with interest has not been released to him letters Annexures P.10 to P.17 have been placed on record. Letter dated 2.7.2005 (annexure P.17) shows that contingent bill affixed with revenue stamp and duly signed by the petitioner had been sent yet the gratuity amount was not released. Similar is the position in respect of letters dated 9.7.2005 ( Annexure P.18), 25.7.2005 ( Annexure P.19) and 5.9.2005 ( Annexure P.20). When the matter came up for consideration on 23.3.2006 on behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that the benefit of retirement gratuity could be released to the petitioner if the deficiency of pre- receipted contingency bill duly counter signed by the Commanding Officer of the Unit last served by the petitioner is produced. Accordingly, this Court directed the petitioner to hand over prereceipted contingency bill duly filled up with complete particulars to the learned counsel for the respondents who shall have the same countersigned from the Commanding Officer of the regiment that was last attended by the petitioner. We further directed that the needful be done at the earliest and the benefit of retirement gratuity be released to him. Accordingly, the retirement gratuity has eventually been released to him as has been stated by the learned Counsel for the parties .

(2.) Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of the order dated 20.6.2006 showing that retirement gratuity has been released to the petitioner which amounted to Rs. 3,23,532.00. The same is taken on record as mark "A".

(3.) Mr. H.P.S. Kochhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that gratuity amount of Rs. 3,.23,532.00 was due to be paid in June, 1998 and the same has been paid after about 8 years. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment as well as the litigation expenses.