Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Tayal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183
CWP-13956-2020 2024:PHHC:050183 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(246) CWP-13956-2020
Date of Decision : April 15, 2024
Ramesh Kumar Tayal .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2020 (Annexure P-23) as well as the order dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P-24).
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the orders impugned have already been implemented, the petitioner is not interested in pressing the said claim.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2018 and his pensionary benefits were released after a delay hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner retired from service on 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 08:10:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183 CWP-13956-2020 2024:PHHC:050183 2 31.08.2018 and prior to the date of retirement, a charge sheet dated 20.06.2014 which was pending against the petitioner, was decided on 20.08.2018 and a recovery of certain amount was imposed upon the petitioner along with stoppage of two increments.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the charge sheet dated 20.06.2014 had already been decided before the date of retirement, there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits but as the respondents wanted to modify the order dated 20.08.2018 to that of recovery as well as cut in pension to the tune of 10% retrial benefits were not released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once there was no impediment for the release of the pensionary benefits on the date of retirement, the respondents are under an obligation to release the same along with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was facing a charge sheet and though the said charge sheet was finally decided on 20.08.2018 i.e. before the date of retirement of the petitioner but as the said order was to be modified, the pensionary benefits were stopped but before the modification of the said order, by an order dated 04.02.2021, the pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner in the year 2020 only. Hence, the petitioner cannot raise claim for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the respondents are under an obligation to release the pensionary benefits 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 08:10:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183 CWP-13956-2020 2024:PHHC:050183 3 within a period of two months of the retirement in case there is no impediment and in case the pensionary benefits are not released, the employee is to be compensated by way of interest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"Since a government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months front the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement."
9. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an amount belonging to an employee, has been retained and used by the respondents, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 08:10:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183 CWP-13956-2020 2024:PHHC:050183 4 on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it."
10. Keeping in view the facts of the present case as there was no impediment on the date when the petitioner retired on 31.08.2018, the respondents should have released all the pensionary benefits without any delay within period prescribed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra). As there is a delay of more than one year in release of the pensionary benefits, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.
11. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed qua the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits and the petitioner is held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date the pensionary benefits became due till the actual release of the same. Let the respondents calculate the interest for which the petitioner becomes entitled for and release the same within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order.
April 15, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 08:10:41 :::