Jagar Ram vs State Of Punjab & Ors

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagar Ram vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 April, 2024

                                              Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224
‭CWP-5165-2017‬                                ‭2024:PHHC:043224‬
                                                              ‭-‬‭1‭-‬ ‬
                ‭IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA‬
                            ‭AT CHANDIGARH‬
‭235‬
                                                         ‭ WP-5165-2017‬
                                                         C
                                                         ‭Date of decision: 01.04.2024‬

‭Jagar Ram‬
                                                                                  ‭...Petitioner‬
                                         ‭Versus‬

‭State of Punjab and others‬
                                                                                  ‭...Respondents‬

‭CORAM:‬ ‭HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY‬ ‭*****‬ ‭Present :‬ ‭Mr. Dhruv Walia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)‬ ‭for the petitioner.‬ ‭Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.‬ ‭*****‬ ‭AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)‬ ‭1.‬ ‭The‬ ‭prayer‬ ‭in‬‭the‬‭present‬‭Civil‬‭Writ‬‭Petition‬‭filed‬‭under‬‭Articles‬ ‭226/227‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Constitution‬ ‭of‬ ‭India‬ ‭is‬ ‭to‬ ‭issue‬ ‭a‬ ‭writ‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭nature‬ ‭of‬ ‭mandamus,‬ ‭directing‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭to‬ ‭pay‬ ‭interest‬ ‭on‬‭the‬‭delayed‬‭payment‬ ‭of gratuity and provident fund.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭would‬‭submit‬‭that‬‭the‬‭petitioner‬‭had‬‭previously‬ ‭approached‬ ‭this‬ ‭Court‬ ‭by‬ ‭filing‬ ‭CWP-4123-2015‬ ‭for‬ ‭extension‬ ‭in‬ ‭service,‬ ‭which‬ ‭was‬ ‭dismissed,‬ ‭however‬ ‭with‬ ‭a‬ ‭direction‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭pension‬ ‭and‬ ‭retiral‬ ‭benefits‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭released.‬ ‭There‬ ‭were‬ ‭certain‬ ‭documents‬ ‭required‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭same,‬ ‭last‬ ‭of‬ ‭which‬ ‭the‬ ‭petitioner‬ ‭supplied‬ ‭on‬ ‭26.05.2016,‬ ‭Annexure‬ ‭R-6.Thereafter,‬ ‭the‬ ‭leave‬ ‭encashment,‬ ‭which‬ ‭though‬ ‭sanctioned‬ ‭vide‬ ‭order‬ ‭dated‬ ‭31.05.2016,‬ ‭Annexure‬ ‭R-8/T‬ ‭and‬ ‭GPF‬ ‭on‬ ‭25.10.2016,‬ ‭Annexure‬ ‭R-10/T,‬ ‭but‬ ‭were‬ ‭released‬ ‭after‬ ‭a‬ ‭long‬ ‭and‬ ‭unexplained‬ ‭delay‬ ‭on‬‭03.12.2016‬ ‭and‬‭07.01.2017‬‭respectively.‬‭Thus,‬‭he‬‭is‬‭entitled‬‭to‬‭interest‬‭thereon‬‭in‬‭view‬‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭judgment‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬‭Full‬‭Bench‬‭of‬‭this‬‭Court‬‭in‬‭A.S.‬‭Randhawa‬‭vs.‬‭State‬‭of‬ ‭Punjab and others,‬‭1997(3) SCT 468‬‭. ‬ 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2024 00:57:37 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224 ‭CWP-5165-2017‬ ‭2024:PHHC:043224‬ ‭-‬‭2‭-‬ ‬ ‭3.‬ ‭Contrarily,‬ ‭the‬ ‭learned‬ ‭State‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭submits‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭delay‬ ‭caused‬‭is‬‭only‬‭procedural‬‭and‬‭on‬‭account‬‭of‬‭the‬‭fact‬‭that‬‭the‬‭petitioner‬‭had‬‭not‬ ‭submitted the documents in time.‬ ‭4.‬ ‭Heard learned counsel on either side.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Apparently,‬ ‭the‬ ‭prayer‬ ‭made‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭writ‬ ‭petition‬ ‭filed‬ ‭was‬ ‭declined,‬ ‭albeit‬ ‭with‬ ‭liberty‬ ‭to‬ ‭avail‬ ‭civil‬ ‭remedy,‬ ‭conjoined‬ ‭with‬ ‭an‬ ‭observation‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭Court‬ ‭that‬ ‭pension‬ ‭and‬ ‭pensionary‬ ‭benefits‬ ‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭released to the petitioner without delay and preferably within a fortnight.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭As‬ ‭is‬ ‭explicit‬ ‭from‬ ‭the‬ ‭facts‬ ‭narrated‬ ‭hereinabove‬ ‭that‬ ‭are‬ ‭substantiated‬‭with‬‭documents‬‭appended‬‭by‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭themselves‬‭as‬‭per‬ ‭which,‬ ‭there‬ ‭has‬ ‭been‬ ‭a‬ ‭delay‬ ‭in‬ ‭release‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭benefits,‬ ‭despite‬ ‭sanction‬ ‭having‬‭been‬‭granted‬‭therefor,‬‭without‬‭any‬‭satisfactory‬‭explanation‬‭offered,‬‭but‬ ‭for a vague reason owing to procedure.‬ ‭7.‬ ‭In‬ ‭A.S.‬ ‭Randhawa‬ ‭(supra),‬ ‭it‬ ‭was‬ ‭held‬‭that‬‭an‬‭employee‬‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭entitled‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭compensated‬‭by‬‭granting‬‭interest‬‭by‬‭the‬‭State‬‭on‬‭account‬‭of‬ ‭delayed disbursal of retiral benefits.‬ ‭8.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭the‬ ‭Supreme‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭Vijay‬ ‭L.‬ ‭Mehrotra‬ ‭vs.‬ ‭State‬ ‭of‬ ‭UP‬‭,‬‭2001‬‭(9)‬‭SCC‬‭687,‬‭held‬‭that‬‭in‬‭case‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭justification‬‭or‬‭reason‬‭for‬ ‭delayed payment of retiral benefits, interest would be liable to be paid.‬ ‭9.‬ ‭This‬‭Court‬‭in‬‭J.S.‬‭Cheema‬‭vs.‬‭State‬‭of‬‭Haryana‬‭,‬‭2014(13)‬‭RCR‬ ‭(Civil)‬ ‭355,‬ ‭observed‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭interest‬‭has‬‭to‬‭be‬‭given‬‭to‬‭an‬‭employee‬‭where‬ ‭an‬‭amount‬‭belonging‬‭to‬‭him,‬‭was‬‭retained‬‭and‬‭utilised‬‭by‬‭the‬‭respondents,‬‭has‬ ‭been released on a later date.‬ ‭10.‬ ‭In‬‭the‬‭case‬‭at‬‭hand,‬‭the‬‭petitioner‬‭is‬‭therefore‬‭entitled‬‭to‬‭grant‬‭of‬ ‭interest,‬‭which‬‭is‬‭not‬‭penal‬‭in‬‭nature‬‭but‬‭compensatory,‬‭having‬‭been‬‭deprived‬ ‭of an amount, which the respondents unjustly enriched themselves with.‬ 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2024 00:57:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224 ‭CWP-5165-2017‬ ‭2024:PHHC:043224‬ ‭-‬‭3‭-‬ ‬ ‭11.‬ ‭Given‬‭the‬‭facts‬‭and‬‭circumstances‬‭of‬‭the‬‭case,‬‭considered‬‭in‬‭light‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭afore-referred‬ ‭judicial‬ ‭pronouncements,‬ ‭the‬ ‭present‬ ‭writ‬ ‭petition‬ ‭is‬ ‭disposed‬ ‭of,‬ ‭with‬ ‭a‬ ‭direction‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭interest‬‭at‬‭the‬‭rate‬ ‭of‬ ‭6%‬ ‭per‬ ‭annum‬ ‭on‬‭the‬‭amount‬‭of‬‭retiral‬‭benefits,‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭of‬‭sanction‬ ‭till actual disbursement, within a period of two months.‬ ‭(AMAN CHAUDHARY)‬ ‭JUDGE‬ 0‭ 1.04.2024‬ ‭Hemant‬ ‭ hether speaking/reasoned‬ W :‭‬ ‭ es / No‬ Y ‭Whether reportable‬ ‭:‬ ‭Yes / No‬ 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 02-04-2024 00:57:38 :::