MEHNGA SINGH SODHI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE (DEVELOPMENT) DEPTT. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had joined Government service on Aug. 13, 1946. He retired on Nov. 31, 1988. During this period of service, the petitioner had been promoted as a Superintendent Grade I on July 4, 1987. He had also officiated as such from Feb. 15, 1983 to May 31, 1983. His pay as Superintendent Grade I was fixed vide order dated July 22, 1987 at Rs. 1460.00 in the pay scale of Rs.825-1580 w.e.f. July 4, 1987. He was granted an increment w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1988 and his pay was, consequently, raised to Rs. 1520.00. After the petitioner had retired, the Director of Horticulture issued an order on Nov. 16, 1988 by which it was ordered that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of an increment as he had superannuated w.e.f. May 31, 1988. Thus, the petitioner was deemed to have retired while drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1460.00 only. As a result, his pension was reduced from Rs. 1315.00 to Rs. 1301/-. Even the amount of gratuity was reduced. The petitioner complains that the respondents had passed the order reducing his pay etc. without the grant of any opportunity whatsoever. Consequently, he challenges the order dated Nov. 16, 1988 as being violative of the principles of natural justice. He prays that his order be set aside and the consequential relief in the nature of revised pay and gratuity be granted. The petitioner has also made a grievance that in spite of his retirement on May 31, 1988, the payment of gratuity was unnecessarily delayed till Dec. 6, 1988. He prays that the respondents should give him interest on the amount of gratuity for the period of six months and six days. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that while working as Superintendent Grade I, the petitioner was in charge of the Establishment Branch, he had got his pay fixed at a higher rate than was actually admissible to him. This was misuse of official position. The mistake was rectified when it was noticed. As a result of the revision of the pay, even the payment of pension etc. was suitably modified. With regard to the petitioners grievance regarding delay in payment of the amount of gratuity, it has been pointed out that he had filed C.W.P. No. 9884 of 1988. He had made a prayer for the grant of interest. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated Nov. 3, 1988. No relief regarding payment of interest was granted. Accordingly, the prayer should be deemed to have been rejected. On these premises, the respondents controvert the petitioners claim and pray that the writ petition should be dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner had retired on May 31, 1988. It is also not disputed that the gratuity was paid to him on Dec. 7, 1988. Even in C.W.P. 9884 of 1988, the petitioner had made a grievance regarding the delay in payment of gratuity. He had claimed interest. No specific order granting the prayer was made. Consequently, it can be safely assumed that the prayer was declined. In any event, the delay was not so much so as to warrant the payment of interest. It is well known that some time is always spent. Usually, the courts do not award interest for the period of three months from the date of retirement. In this case, it has been explained that even an enquiry was pending against the petitioner. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of any interest for delay in the release of his gratuity. This prayer of the petitioner is, consequently, declined.