JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that CWP No.4427 of 2023 , titled as Tulsi Ram versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and others, may be taken up as the lead case, for the reason that prayer and relief in all the petitions listed today is identical. In view of this, the prayer so made is granted in the interests of justice. Accordingly all the cases are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the facts and other details are extracted from CWP No.4427 of 2023, titled as Tulsi Ram versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. In CWP No. 4427 of 2023, the respondent-Corporation has also filed the reply. The stand so taken in the lead case is treated as the stand in all the connected matters. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (CWP No.4427 of 2023, being lead case), with the following prayers:- “a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till 31.07.2021 with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization. (b) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondent Corporation to revise the gratuity (DCRG) and leave encashment and to pay the same alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner w.e.f. due date i.e. 1.8.2021 till the date of its realization. (c) The respondents may also be directed to pay ADA and balance amount of 50% IR with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date and till the date of its realization” 4. The petitioner retired from the post of Manager from the Respondent-Corporation after rendering long service in the Corporation. Post retirement the case of the petitioner is that though the gratuity has been sanctioned and the Leave Encashment is admissible to the petitioner in terms of the revised pay scale but, the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment has not been released till day. The prayer of the petitioner is based on the Government Notifications adopted by the Corporation to grant the revised pay scales to the employees of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The prayer of the petitioner is based on the Government Notifications adopted by the Corporation to grant the revised pay scales to the employees of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.01.2016. In this background, even the revised pay scales and the arrears accruing therefrom have not been released till day. 5. In this background, the petitioner is praying for the release of revised pay arrears as due in terms of the revised pay norms w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the superannuation of the petitioner(s). In addition to this, the petitioner(s) are claiming the amount of revised retiral gratuity and leave encashment which flow from the revised pay fixation, as is applicable to the petitioner(s). 6. Upon issuance of notice on 13.9.2023, the respondents were directed to have instructions in the matter. Mr.Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate has placed on record instructions/reply by way of para wise comments in the petitions in which the respondent-Corporation is being represented by her. 7. Learned Standing Counsels for the respondent, do not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner(s) for revised pay, revised gratuity and revised leave encashment in terms of the Notifications issued by the State Government which have been adopted and made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, as per reply filed by the respondent-Corporation. The only submission so put forth is that the financial condition of the Corporation is not in good humour as on day and therefore, the admissible revised benefits as referred to above, cannot be granted to the petitioner(s) in lump sum. 8. The above plea so taken by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation, in considered view of this Court is not tenable in law, for the reason that once the petitioner(s) have served the Respondent-Corporation and by virtue of the State Government Notifications which stand adopted by the Corporation the benefits of revised pay including arrears; the revised gratuity and revised leave encashment has accrued to the petitioner(s) which are the retiral benefits of the petitioner(s) and come within the ambit of the property under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India then, the respondents cannot withhold or deprived the petitioner for the said benefits except in accordance with law. 9. Notably, the revised retiral benefits can only be denied to the petitioner(s)-employees, in case there is any criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner(s) as on the date of their retirement. 9. Notably, the revised retiral benefits can only be denied to the petitioner(s)-employees, in case there is any criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner(s) as on the date of their retirement. It is not the case of the Respondent-Corporation that such rider or embargo exists any of the petitioner(s). In this view of the matter the plea so taken, though verbally on instructions of the Corporation, is not at all tenable in Law as well as facts. 10. The matter in issue as to what rate of interest is to be granted to the petitioner(s)-employees in case the retiral benefits are withheld or delayed by an employer. 11. In this context, so far as, the claim for pension and gratuity is concerned, the rate of interest, even under the CCS Pension Rules is 7.1 under Rule 65 of the CCS Pension Rules. So far as the gratuity is concerned under Section 7 (3A) the rate of interest is 6.8% as applicable on the date of retirement of the present petitioner and such rate of interest in case of other petitioners also under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act as amended in 2018 whereby the revised admissible amount of gratuity was enhanced from 10 Lakh to 20 Lakh as referred to above. 12. While dealing with the issue regarding admissibility of revised pay and revised retiral benefits [i.e., revised Leave Encashment and revised Gratuity] and the interest on delayed payments, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2473 of 2022, titled as Salig Ram Chauhan versus Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd and another, decided on 04.07.2023, has mandated the respondents to release the revised pay arrears, by directing the respondents to release the revised pay arrears w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to the petitioners by following the same analogy this Court directs the Respondent-Corporation to release the arrears of revised pay to the petitioners within six months from today, failing which the Respondent-Corporation shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date till actual payment. 13(i). So far as, the claim for Revised Leave Encashment and Gratuity is concerned, this Court has relies upon a judgment passed in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta vs State of H.P and others, decided on 1.12.2022, has held as under:- “5. 13(i). So far as, the claim for Revised Leave Encashment and Gratuity is concerned, this Court has relies upon a judgment passed in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta vs State of H.P and others, decided on 1.12.2022, has held as under:- “5. Viewing from any angle, the stand taken by the respondents in denying payment of revised leave encashment to the petitioner cannot be countenanced. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to implement the Office Order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-4). The balance amount of leave encashment due to the petitioner in terms of office order dated 10.02.2021 be paid to her within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to her by the respondents alongwith the due balance leave encashment amount within the aforesaid period. We also clarify that in case this amount is not paid within a period of four weeks, the same shall also carry interest @ 5% per annum from the due date.” 13(ii) Likewise, this Court in CWP No.9377 of 2023, titled as Rakesh Agnihotri versus HPTDC and others , decided on 15.12.2023, and relevant Paras of the judgment whereby the direction(s) to release the revised gratuity and leave encashment along with admissible interest as mentioned in the said judgment, reads as under:- “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non release/withholding of Revised Enhanced Gratuity, has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the statutory interest from the due date till realization under Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules @ 7.1% per annum also. 7. In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for grant of relief prayed by him is squarely covered under the judgment dated 24.02.2022 delivered in CWP No.6628/2021 titled as Anil Kumar Goel vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development and anr. decided on 24.2.2022 which reads as under:- 4. 7. In the above background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for grant of relief prayed by him is squarely covered under the judgment dated 24.02.2022 delivered in CWP No.6628/2021 titled as Anil Kumar Goel vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development and anr. decided on 24.2.2022 which reads as under:- 4. While disposing of Review Petition No.110 of 2021 on 25.11.2021, preferred against the order dated 09.11.2021 passed in CWP No.6928 of 2021, in which, the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2021 passed in CWP No.4377 of 2021 was relied upon, this Court has clarified the aforesaid order in the terms that the respondent-Corporation shall be liable to pay entire retiral dues of the petitioner, including gratuity, arrears of pension and leave encashment alongwith prescribed rate of interest, within a period of six months from the due date till the actual payment is made. 5. We are, therefore, persuaded to dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to pay gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners with actual rate of interest as per applicable rules, till the time of actual payment, which shall be paid to them within a period of six months from today. The due amount of payment, if delayed beyond six months, shall be paid with interest to the rate of 9% per annum till the date of its actual payment. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively submits that consequent upon the amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act (vide Amendment Act No. 12 of 2018) notified on 11.4.2018, the maximum amount of Gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) was enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs); and the petitioner, who retired from service of the Respondent-Corporation on 31.08.2021 is entitled for Enhanced Gratuity but the action of the Respondents in not releasing the admissible amount of Rs.17,82,415/- or such like amount and admissible interest under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, to the petitioner till day is illegal. 9. 9. In order to substantiate the submissions made in Para 6 supra, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2740 of 2022, titled as Mudit Kumar Versus H.P.T.D.C, decided on 30.12.2022 alongwith connected matters, which reads as under:- 3. The respondent has filed its reply, wherein it has not denied the entitlement of the petitioner(s) to the reliefs, as sought for, and the only ground taken for not granting the benefit to the petitioner(s) is contained in para-4 of the reply, which reads as under:- That the petitioner is entitled to the higher amount of gratuity as per payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 amended on 29.3.2018 by the Govt. of India, published in the Gazettee of India (Annexure R-2). But the petitioner despite of being entitled cannot be granted the financial benefit exceeding the limit of Rs. 10.00,000/- because of the fact that the competent authority of the Respondent corporation ie. Board of Directors (BOD) in its meeting held on 29.11.2019 vide agenda item No. 154.7 that due to poor financial health of the HPTDC the item agenda has been deferred till the resources of the corporation allow to bear the expenditure (Annexure R-3). Hence, the financial benefits exceeding the capping of Rs. 10.00.000/- as per payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 amended on 29.3.2018 referred above can be given to the petitioner along with other similarly situated retirees only in case the same will be approved by the competent authority i.e. Board of Directors (BOD) of the respondent corporation as per availability of funds in future. It is further submitted that respondent corporation is a semi Govt. commercial organization where, the benefits like revised pay scale from time to time at par with the Govt. Departments are being released to the eligible employees of the HPTDC, only after the prior approval of the competent authority i.e. Board of Directors. It is pertinent to mention here that, the matter with respect of revised pay scale was placed before the Board of Directors of HPTDC. In its meeting held on 5.9.2022 for granting of above benefits to the eligible employees of the Respondent corporation. It is. also submitted that as & when the Board of Directors of the Respondent Corporation approves the adoption of revised pay scale effective from 1.1.2016 onward at par with the Himachal Pradesh Govt. In its meeting held on 5.9.2022 for granting of above benefits to the eligible employees of the Respondent corporation. It is. also submitted that as & when the Board of Directors of the Respondent Corporation approves the adoption of revised pay scale effective from 1.1.2016 onward at par with the Himachal Pradesh Govt. Departments in HPTDC. the balance amount of Leave encashment, if any as per these pay scales will be calculated and released to the petitioner as per availabilities of the funds." 4. Once the respondent accedes to the entitlement and eligibility of the petitioner(s) for grant of relief of revised gratuity, obviously, the mere fact that the same could not be placed before the competent authority, 1.e. the Board of Directors, can be no ground to deny such benefit to the petitioner(s). 5. Accordingly, we deem it proper to dispose of these petitions by directing the respondent to release the revised higher amount of gratuity and leave encashment in favour of the petitioner(s), in terms of the Revised Pay Rules as well as Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act. 2018, within a period of three months from today, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till its realization in favour of the petitioner(s). The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.” 14. So far as prayer made in clause-(c) as in Para 3 of this judgement, the petitioners have claimed the benefit of Additional Dearness Allowance (ADA) and balance amount of 50% IR alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till realization, in this context Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, has drawn the attention of this Court to the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6013 of 2023 titled as Braham Dass versus HRTC and another whereby in similar situation the Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to consider the benefit of release of additional dearness allowance and interim relief in terms of the office memorandum issued by the State Government which have been adopted by the respondent-Corporation also. 15. 15. In the background of the submissions made in Para 3 to 14 (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider/examine the case of the petitioners for redressal of grievances, raised by them in the instant petitions (for releasing the Arrear of Salary w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till their retirement; the benefit of Additional Dearness Allowance and revised salary w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till their retirement including balance 50% IR for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till retirement, the Revised Enhanced Gratuity and Revised Leave Encashment alongwith arrears and also the interest on delayed retiral benefits, (revised enhanced gratuity and revised leave encashment) in the light of the aforesaid judgments, within a time bound schedule. 16. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by Mr. Shivank Singh Panta in lead case and also not opposed by Ms. Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, in other cases, on facts as well as in law. 17. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents-competent authority to consider/examine the case of the petitioner, for release of admissible Arrear of salary; Dearness Allowance; Remaining 50% Interim Relief; Revised-Enhanced Gratuity and Revised Leave Encashment; in the light of the judgments in case of Anil Kumar Goel, Mudit Kumar, Amita Gupta and Braham Dass (supra), in accordance with law, within four months from today. 18. Upon consideration, since the respondents are directed to release, the benefits of legal entitlements of Revised Gratuity and Revised Leave Encashment which became due and payable on retirement withheld arbitrarily, but were delayed till day. In addition thereto, the Respondent-Corporation shall release the statutory interest admissible, under the Statute or Rules or Orders issued thereunder to the petitioner from the due date till actual realization of aforesaid benefits [i.e. as is admissible on GPF under Rule 65 of CCS (Pension) Rules i.e. 7.1 per annum or interest admissible on long term deposits under Section 7(3A) of Payment of Gratuity Act i.e. 6.75% per annum]. Further, the respondents shall release similar rate of interest @ 6% per annum or Revised Leave Encashment, from due date (i.e. expiry of those months from the date of notification of revised pay scale by the Respondents-Corporation, till its realization, to the petitioner, within four months from today; failing which, the Respondents, shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from due date till realization. 19. The direction passed by this Court in lead case CWP No. 4427 of 2023 titled as Tulsi Ram versus The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.& others shall mutatis mutandis apply in case of all the petitioners in connected with the writ petitions which are disposed of by a common judgement today. 20. In aforesaid terms, all the writ petitions mentioned above as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. For compliance, list after six months from today.