Kuldip Chand Bhargav v. Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana



  
   

 


 



!"#"

$%&' '

  




 







      
  
  

 

 
(% )* ('

+
 + +    !

"


#  
 $

  %
   "


&


&

'

 

%    + + 

, '

-.

/0 ( 
  
 

%
 
 
))*+)),
%  
 
%
- 
. 

$ 

 

 
%


% /   
%
 
' 

 
0123)204
5

6 
7*8 $  
 
 '
%
 
 
%



%
  

 


' 
%   ' 
%
) 199+7
$
%%
% '
2023)22)
 ),24)221

 

 
  

$

%  



% 


%

$ 

 

 
%
 

  
 
  7   




  

 


' 
%
 
%
) 199+7 $
%%
% '
2023)22)

),24)221
:)3;


'

$
  /  
 %

  ( 
 %
% 
%
 
  
 


 
 
 

 

&
#


<  
% '
 
  
  


=02=)22)




  
%
'


' 
  

  
'

 
 
 %
$ 

 

 
  
>$

 
 
%


?



@0,14,
%
)229
% 
   


  
 
  
%
 
%  
$ 


    
'

 
%  
%
 


 
 
 
 
)900)224
5

6 
708

 
%  
 

 

 

  
 
  

 
 
' 
%  

 
 
$ 
 
%
$
'  
% '
 
 
%


%
 %

%
 
  
-
$ 

 
 

 

%  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
%
 

  

 
 
 
 
'


%%
 
' 
%
 
  -
$ 

  
( 



 
%
 
%  
 


 

  !7 A-
$
%
 
% 
 
212)0119
$ 


 

 
 
%
 
 

 


),2=)22)
 



 
  
  


 
 
' 
%
 




 
  $ 
 
%
$
'  
% '
 
 
%

%  %

%
 
   "




%  
%
 
  
 
 
 
 
'


%%
 
' 
%
 
 
-


  B


(   %

 
  
%

 
%   + '% 
%
 
%  
 
)900)224





6 
7)

 
 
$ 

%



$ 
 

 
 
 
 



%  
 

$ 
 
  
$ 

%  
%
 


 
 
 



 
%


'
%
 
$ 




 
 
%
'
 
  
  

 

   

2*24)221
(   %

 
'


$ 
%





 
 



6 
73

0029)209
( 
%  

$ 

$

 
 


 
' 
 

$ 
 


$   


%%
% '
 
 
$ 





 
$ 




 
  

 

 
 
 %
 $  
  
:4;


'
% '
 
 
%
 ' 




'


 
' 
  

% '
 
 

 $
 
 '   
% '
 
 
%





' 
$ 
 
%
% '  
-
$ 
%  
 
 

' 



% 
% '

 
 
%
 
  
( 
 



%
 
%  
' 
 

  !7 A-
$
%
 

% 


 '


 
  

$
' 
  
 
0*21)223 5

6 
7008C
)00))200
5

6 
7098C
),23)20) 5

6 
70*8


0900)20)
5

6 
70*8








 



 
  

 


 
'

  
 
 %
 
$
  
:4;


'
% '
 
 
%
 ' 




' 


 

' 
  

% '
 

 
$
   '
  
% '
 
 
%





'

$ 
%
'  
%
 

%
 %

%
    
-

%  
 
 

' 




% 
% '
 
 
%
 
  B

 (   %


 
'

  
 %

$ 
 
  $ 
 
$ 
 

 
   $
  
:4;


'


$
 
%  
' 
 

 
 


0029)209

?
@0,14,
%
)229


$




 
 '
   







 

'


%
 
  
  ( 
 
   %
'


  

 

  
  
%
 
 
%
  

 
 
$ 
 

  
  





  
 
  
 

   
 %



% '
 
  
>$


$

%
 
'   


6 
7*

$ 


 
<6
<  
 
    

 




 

 
 
 


  ' 
 

 
 

0029)209

$ 
 
 '

  
 
 %B
$
  
:4;



 


   


$






' 
%
  

 


  % 
 
 


 
%
 



%
  
(    
 

%
%   
 
%  
' 
   
0123)204
-


'




 
%
 
  
 
  

$  
 
  

 


' 
%   
>
'
 
%
 
 ' 
%
 
 


$   
%
 



%

 
 
 %
  
 
 



$
%
 
%

 
%%
% 

 
 



%

 
%  
%
 



$

%

  

   

 
 



6 
70
he was directed to be paid gratuity and consequently the University paid the gratuity to him on

  06.08.2009. Thereafter, when the matter came up for final consideration, this Court had rather allowed the entire petition and set aside the action of the respondent by which the recovery was to be effected from the petitioner and in the aforesaid judgment, it has been so observed that now the remaining retiral benefit is to be paid and for that purpose, interest @8% was fixed and the University has complied with the aforesaid judgment and paid all the remaining retiral benefits alongwith the interest @8%.

However, on the aforesaid amount of gratuity, no interest has been paid which is totally irrational and arbitrary and it also violates the Constitutional right of the petitioner which is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and had submitted that there is no justification for not paying the interest on the gratuity amount to the petitioner which was delayed for about 71⁄2 years and therefore directions may be issued for the grant of interest on the detailed payment of gratuity from the date of retirement till the date of payment, i.e. from 31.03.2002 to 06.08.2009.

 $12

4 .5# +

5$6

$1

2 .#

011,5=8 &(
3*4, to contend that a writ petition is maintainable only for the purpose of grant of interest and therefore the present petition has been filed for the grant of interest only on the amount of gratuity which was paid to the petitioner after about 71⁄2 years in pursuance of direction of this Court which were in the form of an interlocutory order and petition was allowed thereafter.

8 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the aforesaid judgment has been assailed by the respondent University and it has been dismissed and attained finality.

On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University submitted that the impugned order has been correctly passed in view of the fact that when the main writ petition was decided by this Court, the expression used was that direction was issued for release of the 'remaining retiral benefits' alongwith interest @8% and that direction has been complied with and all the remaining benefits have been paid to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 8%, but so far as the gratuity is concerned, it did not cover the aforesaid direction and there was no specific direction for the grant of interest on gratuity amount and therefore the respondent University was well within its right to have not paid interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

He has also submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and it is barred by the rule of constructive res judicata. He further submitted that the gratuity was paid subject to outcome of the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The aforesaid factual position would show that when the main petition, i.e. CWP-17987 of 2005 was decided by this Court on 11.05.2015, the gratuity had already been paid to the petitioner in pursuance of an interlocutory order passed by this Court vide Annexure P1 and therefore this Court directed that all the remaining retiral benefits be paid @8% per annum.

& with the direction of this Court and paid the remaining retiral benefits alongwith interest @8%. Only dispute in the present case is pertaining to grant of interest on the payment of gratuity which has been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the earlier petition but by way of an interlocutory order passed by this Court vide Annexure P-1 which was only an interim measure so as to cope up with the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner and that is why there was no component of interest mentioning in that order. Thereafter, when the main petition was allowed, the interlocutory order would therefore merge in the aforesaid main judgment.

It is not a case that the petitioner had earlier filed some petition for grant of interest on the retiral benefits whereby it was declined to him, but it's a case where rather this Court intervened and directed the University to give the gratuity to cope up with the financial difficulties. The plea which has been taken by learned counsel for the respondent that the prayer of the petitioner would be barred by the rule of constructive res judicata is not only irrational but is also unsustainable. The right of gratuity and retiral benefits and of interest is a Constitutional right which is guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In other words, right to receive pensionary benefits is a part of Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

At the time when this Court had decided the earlier writ petition on 11.05.2015, the gratuity had already been paid to the petitioner and therefore this Court had directed that the remaining retiral benefits be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest.

 held anywhere that the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of gratuity but rather it was other way round that the petition itself was allowed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the light of the aforesaid position, the plea which has been taken by the respondent University that it is hit by the rule of constructive res judicata is totally unsustainable. The reliance which has been placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra) is also well placed. A separate writ petition can independently lie only for the grant of interest. Interest was not denied to the petitioner on the gratuity amount at any point of time.

Therefore, the right to receive gratuity was not only his statutory right under the Pension Regulations of University but was also a Constitutional right and interest being a consequential part of the same, cannot be deprived of by taking such hyper-technical pleas. Apart from the above, the aforesaid plea taken by learned counsel for the respondent with regard to constructive res judicata is a procedural plea. On the one hand, there is a procedural plea taken by learned counsel for the respondent University and on the other hand, there is a substantive right of the petitioner and this Court is of the view that the procedural objection taken by learned counsel for the respondent will have to give way to the substantive right of the petitioner.

Apart from the above, so far as the other retiral benefits are concerned, undoubtedly and admittedly the same has been paid to the petitioner alongwith interest @8% and no artificial distinction can be drawn with regard to the right of interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

9 Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present petition deserves to succeed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the same rate, i.e. @8% per annum on the payment of gratuity from the date of his retirement till the date of payment. The respondent University is hereby directed to calculate the aforesaid interest amount and pay to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing to which the University shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum after the expiry of three months from today.




-+ + 0    7.5 .:

&,

 














  ?  
 .  !

D+@ ?     !

D+@