Hans Raj v. The Director Horticulture Pb, Chandigarh And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8942-2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.03.2025 Hans Raj ....Petitioner

Versus

The Director Horticulture Punjab, Chandigarh and Others

...Respondents

CWP-8012-2004 (O&M) Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

None for the petitioners
  

    ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together by this common order and for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP-8942-2003.

2.

Prayer made in the present petitions is for directing the respondents to release the gratuity amount of Rs.57,070/-, which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.01.2002.

3.

Learned State counsel on the other hand refers to para 6 of the written statement dated 29.04.2004 filed by Deputy Director, Horticulture, Hoshiarpur, to which no replication was filed and the same reads thus: "That para No.6 of the petition is admitted to the extent so far as term emoluments for the purpose of calculating MOHIT 2025.03.26 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-8942-2003 (O&M) CWP-8012-2004 (O&M) -2various retirements benefits are concerned, but the petitioner is not correctly interpreting the said rule as Dearness Allowance is not dearness pay and gratuity is to be calculated on the basis of basic pay plus dearness pay only. In terms of the said rule the entire gratuity has since been paid to the petitioner and nothing is due with the respondents."

4.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it revived, in case, need arises. 5.

 

  

 

 

  (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 26.03.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No MOHIT 2025.03.26 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document