Gurmeet Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
1.
CWP-3136-2023 Gurmeet Singh & Ors.
Surinder Kumar & Ors.
Sarabjit Singh
Rajinder Kumar & Anr.
!"
# $ !
!
"#$ %& ' "
&(")$ %&*+ , -
".
/
" %& '
!0122 33333
%&'() 1.
This common judgment shall dispose of all the aforementioned petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-3136-2023.
2.
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Department to release the arrears of pensionary benefits, i.e. gratuity and leave encashment, in view of amendment dated 29.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) made by the Central Government in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby the maximum amount of gratuity was enhanced from ₹10 lakh to ₹20 lakh, and further to release the revised pensionary benefits in terms of the letter dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-4), vide which the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were implemented for pensioners by the State of Punjab, along with interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. It is further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent-Department
to consider and decide the legal notice/representations dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) served by the petitioners for grant of the aforesaid benefits. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer of the petitioners regarding enhanced gratuity has been accepted by the respondents. However, the enhanced gratuity was paid after a delay without any interest. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by CWP-7291-2026 and other connected cases, titled as Nirmal Singh Dhanona and others Versus Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh%." " "
*'
( ,"
'
4 ($, $ #
$ 55& "%$
$ "
, "
"
(
4.
Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioners served the Government of Punjab and retired from one of the Municipal Bodies. As such, the case is at par with the petitioner(s), who got retired from Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, in Nirmal Singh (supra).
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
5 & (
$,%"
"
$$,
"
6 & "%"
#""
'
7
"
( "
.
#
"
%
( $$#"
(
"" 0
$ $
$ " # ( ,
$
"
# (
, 8.9 # - ""
+:$
( 0
; In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition(s) are disposed of in terms of
8"
7 "
( "
$
"
'
4 ($, $# ." $$
< $ %.""
( ( $
"
8"
.$$ $
=5>
$ , $
#"
# , "
( "
$$ $ $
(2
?;%.("
("
( $$ $
$@ A
?;%"
$ $
.("
("
?;
& 7 2 $$ $ ,( 8"
( "
." "
("
("
#"
8"
#(
$$ $
% ,% "
$$ $
" ,"
$
"
$
%
)
1"
"
)#4
B
4! 1"
"
$
4!