Manoj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manoj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 May, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937



CWP No.10749 of 2024 (O&M)                                                1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

110-4
                                          CWP No.10749 of 2024 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 15.05.2024

Manoj Kumar
                                                              ....Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:      Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, who is son of Omvati, who was working as Sweeper in the office of Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, who retired on 31.10.2018 and unfortunately died on 28.12.2019, has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to pay the remaining death-cum-retirement benefits of his deceased mother including gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, pensionary benefits, unpaid salary, medical benefits and other benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.10.2018.

2. On receipt of advance copy of writ petition, learned counsel for the State appearing for the respondents, has produced a copy of letter dated 14.05.2024, addressed by the Executive Officer, 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-05-2024 07:05:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937 CWP No.10749 of 2024 (O&M) 2 Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda to the Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it has been stated that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have now been released. He further submits that in this view of the matter, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although some payments were released by the Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, from 29.10.2018 but some of the remaining payments have been released from 10.05.2019 to 14.05.2024, after a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the said payments. He further submits that although the payments have now been released but however, the respondents have not supplied any calculation sheet to the petitioner to ascertain as to whether any other amount is due or not.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant documents.

5. Admittedly, there was nothing adverse against the mother of the petitioner when she retired from service on 31.10.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation. Since there is a considerable delay in releasing the retiral dues of the mother of petitioner, therefore, the benefit of interest cannot be denied to the petitioner.

6. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-05-2024 07:05:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937 CWP No.10749 of 2024 (O&M) 3 employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of 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 retiree 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 from 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."

7. Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, had held that an employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment 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 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."

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 16-05-2024 07:05:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937 CWP No.10749 of 2024 (O&M) 4

8. In view of the above factual position and settled principles of law, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for grant of interest @ 6% per annum, on the following payments:-

Sr. No.    Dated                         Amount Paid (in Rs.)
    1.     10.05.2019                    1,00,000/-
      2.   29.08.2019                    1,00,000/-
      3.   31.09.2019                    2,00,000/-
      4.   21.10.2021                    2,00,000/-
      5.   15.09.2022                    1,18,949/-
      6.   09.05.2024                    3,00,000/-
      7.   14.05.2024                    77,795/-
           Total                         10,96,744/-

9. Respondent No.4 - Executive Officer, Municipal Council Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, is directed to grant interest to the petitioner on the aforesaid delayed payments, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. Respondent No.4, shall also supply a calculation sheet to the petitioner within a period of 02 weeks from today and if the petitioner has still any grievance, he is at liberty to make a detailed representation within a period of 01 month thereafter and the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.4 - Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, within a period of 02 months thereafter.

                                               (NAMIT KUMAR)
                                                   JUDGE
15.05.2024
yakub        Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No

             Whether reportable:                       Yes/No



                                4 of 4
             ::: Downloaded on - 16-05-2024 07:05:16 :::