Om Parkash vs Uhbvnl And Ors on 25 July, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Om Parkash vs Uhbvnl And Ors on 25 July, 2013

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

CWP No. 10272 of 2012                                                  1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                             CWP No. 10272 of 2012
                                             Date of decision: 25.07.2013

Om Parkash                                                   ...Petitioner


                              Vs.

UHBVNL and Ors.                                              ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

Present: Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

          Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate
          for the respondents.

M.M.S. BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The petitioner through instant Civil Writ Petition seeks a direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits of gratuity, commutation alongwith interest claiming that he had retired from services on 31.03.2011.

In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that vide cheque dated 19.07.2013 an amount of `7,12,751/- has been released to the petitioner on account of pension/ gratuity/commutation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the payment on account of delay in release of retiral benefits as per the policy of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Annexure P-5 dated 11.12.2008.

This petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to claim the interest on delayed retiral benefits on the basis of Annexure P-5 by filing a CWP No. 10272 of 2012 2 representation within a period of 15 days.

The respondents are directed to calculate interest on the retiral benefits on the basis of instructions Annexure P-5 and release the amount due to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.

Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has given in writing that he is satisfied with the payment made vide acknowledgement Annexure R-3/1.

I have considered the said contention of learned counsel for the respondents. Since a benefit is conferred upon the petitioner on the basis of Government instructions and there cannot be an estoppel against law. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a representation and claim the interest on the delayed payment by submitting a representation.

(M.M.S. BEDI) 25.07.2013 JUDGE Poonam (II) Sharma Poonam 2013.07.30 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court