Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR
Surinder Kaur Randhawa – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release interest on the delayed release of gratuity amount to the petitioner.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006, however, her gratuity was withheld by the respondents and recovery of Rs.4,03,882/- was ordered against the petitioner on account of excess payment made to her in the shape of additional increments of higher qualification. The said action of recovering a sum of Rs.4,03,882/- was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.6830 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 30.03.2012 in terms of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Beant Singh v. State of Punjab : 2010 (25) SCT 715, wherein it was held that no recovery could be made from the petitioners as there was no misrepresentation on their part and the said writ petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving the official respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioners without effecting
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory entitlement of an employee to interest on delayed payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
