- (1.) The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 29.8.2000 (P-6) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Director General School Education, Haryana (respondent No. 2) directing recovery of Rs. 51,952/- and the subsequent order dated 31.5.2006 (P-7) passed in appeal by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana (respondent No. 1) upholding the aforementioned order.
(2.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Assistant in the office of respondent No. 2. One Shri M.M. Singh filed C.W.P. No. 2688 of 1997. Another petition registered as C.W.P. No. 11215 of 1997 was also filed by one Shri S.J. Pathak. In both the petitions, claim was made before this Court for grant of benefit of gratuity in respect of the service rendered in private colleges before they were taken over by the Government. The aforementioned relief was based on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Chander Sain v. State of Haryana . The petitioner herein was required to assist in preparation of reply, which was filed on 14.10.1997 in the aforementioned cases. The stand taken in the reply was that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Sain's case (supra) did not apply to the cases as pleaded in the aforementioned two petitions filed by Sarvshri M.M. Singh and S.J. Pathak. The Division Bench castigated the department and awarded interest to the petitioners in the aforementioned cases on account of delayed payment. However, it was stipulated that the payment of interest has to be made by the official who had defaulted in the decision. In that regard, the order dated 23.2.1998 passed by the Division Bench may first be noticed and the same reads as under: It is conceded by the learned State counsel that the matter is covered squarely by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1994 (Chander Sain v. State of Haryana) decided on January 7, 1994. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, contends that the petitioner had retired on 31st July 1996 and he had made representation to the respondents on 20th August, 1996 Annexure P-1 to the petition pointing out thathe was entitled to payment of gratuity in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court aforementioned but the positive stand taken by the respondents is that the said judgement was not applicable to the petitioner's case. In view of the facts stated above, we are of the opinion that the respondents ought to have decided the matter in favour of the petitioner in the light of judgement of the Supreme Court. We are further of the opinion that the interest which would be due to the petitioner on account of the late payment should be paid by the official who defaulted in the decision. On this Ms. Bahri, seeks time to file a reply to the petition. May do so within three weeks. Adjourned to 30th March, 1998. Sd/- H.S. Bedi Judge Sd/- Sawatanter Kumar 23rd Feb. 1998 Judge.
(3.) An additional reply was filed on 11.3.1998 taking the plea that the direction issued by the Supreme Court in Chander Sain's case (supra) were applicable only to that case as no general directions were issued to pay gratuity in respect of periods spent in private educational colleges before they were taken over. Rejecting the aforementioned plea, the Division Bench on 30.3.1998 observed as under: In pursuance of the directions given by this Court by order dated 23rd February, 1998 in this case and also in CWP No. 2688 of 1997, the respondents have granted sanction for payment of gratuity to each of the petitioners vide order dated 19th March, 1998. A copy of that order is taken on record. It is however, noted that sanction has been recorded only for payment of principal amount of gratuity and not of the interest thereon. The learned D.A.G. explains that the reason for non payment of interest is that the rate of interest was not specified and the department has already initiated enquiry for fixing the responsibility on the defaulting officials from whom the pecuniary loss to the government has to be recovered. The respondents are hereby directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount found to each of the petitioners from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment within four weeks from today. The payment of interest shall be made initially by the Government of Haryana and the pecuniary loss caused thereby to the government may be recovered from the personal pay of the defaulting officer after fixing the responsibility in accordance with law. For further directions, adjourned to July 15, 1998. Sd/- Arun B. Saharya Chief Justice Sd/- H.S. Bedi 30.3.1998 Judge.;