IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 565 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 Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG Punjab ***** 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) -2- various 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. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (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