Rakesh Garg, J. - (1.) PETITIONER served the respondent -School as Medical Officer with effect from 1.1.1999 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2006. When the petitioner retired, he was having less than 10 years of service and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension as per Punjab Civil Services Rules. According to the petitioner, though he was not entitled to the pension, however, he was entitled to the gratuity as per Service Rules, which was not paid to him. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents in this regard. However, the matter could not be decided and it was only on 17.2.2011 that the respondents decided to allow him the gratuity and the same was paid to him on 28.6.2011.
(2.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought interest for the period w.e.f. 31.8.2006 upto 28.6.2011 on the aforesaid amount of gratuity by submitting that the same was denied to him without any fault on his part in spite of the fact that he was entitled to the same. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing written statement wherein a defence was taken that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 23.12.1998, the petitioner was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. However, on receiving his representation, the case was forwarded to the Government and the Government issued instructions after consultation with the Finance Department, Haryana vide letter dated 17.2.2011 and consequently clause 3(m) of the appointment letter dated 23.12.1998 was rectified and, thereafter, the petitioner became eligible for gratuity for the period 1.1.1999 to 31.8.2006 and the same was accordingly paid to him.
(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid defence taken, it has been argued before this Court that the no malafides can be attributed to the respondents for the delay in payment of the gratuity made available to the petitioner as the right of the petitioner to receive gratuity had crystalised only on 17.2.2011 when the government rectified the terms and conditions of his appointment letter. Even otherwise, a perusal of the writ petition would show that the petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the respondents. No doubt, to receive pensionary benefits is a constitutional right, however, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra -ordinary jurisdiction in this case.;