UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF TOURISM vs MS. PROMILA SAWHNEY

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19 February 2025 Pronounced on: 1 July 2025 + W.P.(C) 1941/2025, CM APPLs. 9069/2025 & 9070/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF TOURISM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gigi C. George, SC with Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv. for UOI versus MS. PROMILA SAWHNEY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Yadav and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pathak, Advs. + W.P.(C) 8244/2024 MRS PROMILA SAWHNEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Yadav and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pathak, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gigi C. George, SC with Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT % 01.07.2025 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1941/2025 & W.P.(C) 8244/2024 Page 1 of 24 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. The lis 1. The only issue for consideration for us, in these writ petitions, which are directed against judgment dated 27 February 2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi 1, is whether Promila Sawhney2, the petitioner in WP (C) 8244/2024 and the respondent in WP (C) 1941/2025, is entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity of US $ 23,879.94. 2. The entitlement of Promila to gratuity is not really in dispute. Though Mr. Gigi C. George, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India3, sought to join issue on the very entitlement of Promila to gratuity, prayer b) in the writ petition specifically seeks a declaration that she is not entitled “to any further relief, including interest and attorney fees, beyond the sanctioned gratuity amount of USD 23,879.94”. We are clear, therefore, that the writ petition does not challenge Prom