2026:HHC:30400-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2248 of 2022 Decided on: 22.07.2026 Mohan Lal … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Dewa Nand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus may be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and they may very kindly be directed to make the payment of interest on the amount of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and leave encashment from 01.01.2013 to 13.10.2021 as is evident from Annexure P-13.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in release of gratuity in his favour. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner served the Forest Department till he superannuated on 31.12.2012 from the post of Forest Guard. He submitted that on account of a departmental inquiry which was initiated against the petitioner and other incumbents in the year 2008, the gratuity of the petitioner was withheld and after the petitioner was exonerated on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30400-DB 07.09.2021 in the departmental proceedings, the same was released in his favour on 13.10.2021. He submitted that as the allegations made against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry were not proved and the delay in the completion thereof has resulted in the denial of gratuity to the petitioner within reasonable time, the respondents be directed to pay interest on the said amount from 01.01.2013 to 13.10.2021, to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, has submitted that in terms of Rule 69 (c), no gratuity is payable to a Government servant until the conclusion of a departmental or Judicial proceedings and the issue of final order thereon. He submitted that in the present case, the gratuity was withheld on account of the pendency of the departmental proceedings and as soon as the departmental proceedings culminated on 09.09.2021, thereafter without any further delay, the gratuity was released in favour of the petitioner on 13.10.2021. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General, though this Court has not find any in act of the respondents in withholding of the gratuity which was payable to the petitioner after his retirement, in light of Rule 69 (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, but then this Court can also not ignore the fact that the undue delay in the completion of the departmental proceedings, which commenced in the year 2008 and culminated in the year 2020, has resulted in denial of the gratuity to 3 2026:HHC:30400-DB the petitioner for a period of almost 9 years as from the date of his superannuation. 6. Annexure P-13 of the petition demonstrates that after the culmination of the departmental inquiry, a sum of Rs. 2,03,282/- was paid to the petitioner as DCRG. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case this petition is disposed of by imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the respondents on the delay that was caused in the culmination of the inquiry, which, thus, resulted in the delay in release of DCRG in favour of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. 8. This petition is disposed of by holding that as on account of undue delay in the completion of the inquiry, the petitioner has been made to suffer for no fault of his, as the holding of the inquiry within some reasonable time was not within the control of the petitioner, the respondent-Department shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the petitioner, which learned counsel for the petitioner submits is acceptable to the petitioner. Let the costs so imposed be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2026 (Rishi)