The undisputed entitlement of an employee to retiral benefits and the court's authority to direct the release of such benefits with statutory interest within a specified time frame.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Notice. Ms. Shilpa Sood, Learned Standing Counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the orders intended to be passed herein.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:

“(a) That a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the revised higher amount of gratuity and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner in terms of the revised pay rules as well as the payment of gratuity (amendment) Act, 2018 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

(b) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondent to release the arrears on account of the delayed payment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.”

4. Case of the petitioner, as presented by Mr. Om Parkash Goel, learned counsel, is that he was appointed in the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited and he retired from the service of the Corporation as Assistant General Manager.

5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not released the balance retiral benefit of Gratuity and Leave Encashment alongwith interest to the petitioner till day. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4129 of 2023, titled as Dile Ram vs. The HPTDC Ltd. Another, decided on 11.08.2023 [taken on record] and also relies on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5896 of 2021, titled as Nand Lal vs The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another alongwith connected matters, decided on 24.02.2022 [Taken on Record] whereby this Court had directed the respondents to release the benefit of Gratuity and Leave Encashment to the incumbents therein, with statutory interests within a period of six months from today in accordance with law.

6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dile Ram, supra, further mandated that in case the amount due is not paid within a period of six months, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date actual payment. The operative part of the judgment in case of Dile Ram, supra, reads as under:

“2. The petitioner was in service of the respondent-Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and retired as Housman on 30.04.2022 from Hotel Holiday Home, HPTDC, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. after rendering 23 years, 05 months & 07 days of regular service. It is the case of the petitioner that his balance amount of gratuity of Rs.4,59,487/-and leave encashment of Rs.3,13,961/- have been sanctioned by the respondents, vide order dated 23.06.2022 Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid gratuity and leave encashment being sanctioned, the same have not been released. It is, however, submitted that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been disbursed to the petitioner by the respondents on account of retiral benefits, i.e. gratuity.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the admissible retiral benefits along with statutory interest to the petitioner within a period of six months from today, in accordance with law. If the amount due is not paid within the aforesaid period, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date of actual payment.”

7. In the background of the judgments passed in the cases of; Dile Ram and Sh. Nand Lal, supra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been granted the balance Gratuity sanctioned and the Leave Encashment, which is also borne out from the averments made in Paras-5 of the writ petition.

8. Per contra, Ms. Shilpa Sood, learned Standing Counsel, submits that