Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 February, 2021
CWP No. 9965 of 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9965 of 2020
Date of decision : 16.02.2021
Satpal Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sunint Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
In the present writ petition, the grievance, which is being raised
by the petitioner is that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to
release his pensionary benefits, for which he had become entitled after he
superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015.
As per the averments, the petitioner was entitled for a sum of
Rs. 11,05,005/-, out of which, Rs. 6,53,938/- was paid and an amount of Rs.
4,51,067/- was still due. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a
direction to the respondents to release the full amount due to him and also
the interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply.
Respondent No. 4-Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Mullanpur Dakha,
District Ludhiana, who was to pay the benefits to the petitioner, has stated
in the reply that the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,54,148/- and
the same has already been paid to him. The reply as given in para 4 of the
1 of 5
written statement is as under :-
"4. That para no. 4 of the writ petition is admitted as correct to
the extent that petitioner after his superannuation was entitled to get
the pension and all pensionary benefits under the regulations
governing his conditions of service from the answering respondent,
but it is wrong and denied that till date that the petitioner has not
been released his pensionary benefits i.e GPF, Leave Encashment
and Gratuity etc. rest of the para is also wrong and denied being
false and frivolous. It is worth to mention here that, the amount of
Gratuity, Leave Encashment and PPF had already been paid by the
answering respondent No.4 to the petitioner from time to time, the
detail of which is as under:-
Pay as on Gratuity Payable under Leave Encashment Pension PPF/GPF Payable Total amount Amount Paid Due
31/03/2015 Payment of Gratuity Act, Payable Contribution payable amount
1972 Deduction
Rs.32,376/- Rs.7,47,138/- Rs.3,23,760/- Rs.16,750/- 90% amount Rs.10,54,146/- Rs.10,54,148 NIL
(32376x40x15/26) (32376x300/ taken as advance (7,47,138 +
30) during service 3,23,760-
period and 16750/-)
Rs.34,166.80
paid on
12/10/2015 vide
DD No.248986
Drawn on OBC
Answering respondent paid total amount of Rs.9,88,788/- to
the petitioner, detail of demand drafts by which, said payment was
paid to the petitioner by the answering respondent No.4 is as under:-
Sr. No. Date Draft Number Amount
1 31/03/2015 052582 drawn on OBC Rs.1,50,000/-
2 02/03/2016 65956 drawn on OBC Rs.1,00,000/-
3 02/06/2016 065990 drawn on OBC Rs.2,01,600/-
4 / / drawn on OBC Rs.54,000/-
5 07/08/2017 375058 drawn on OBC Rs.1,00,000/-
6 26/03/2019 004506drawn on OBC Rs.1,33,250/-
7 22/05/2020 840435 drawn on OBC Rs.50,000/-
065997 drawn on OBC in Rs.1,99,938/-
compliance of order passed
9 28/09/2020 029600 OBC 65,307/-
Total 10,54,148/-
Hence, as the balance/due shown by the petitioner in the
present petition amounting to Rs.4,51,067/- is wrong and baseless
and the said amount was not payable by the answering respondent
2 of 5
No.4 to the petitioner as per law and the petitioner has been wrongly
claiming the said amount from the answering respondent on the
basis of wrong facts and calculations."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount for
which the petitioner was entitled, have been paid but the said amount has
been paid after a delay and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest
on delayed release of payment relating to the pensionary benefits.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
A bare perusal of the chart, which has been reproduced by
respondent No. 4 in its reply, makes it clear that on the date of retirement of
the petitioner only Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to him and rest of the total
amount of Rs. 10,54,148/- was paid to petitioner starting from March, 2016
onwards till September, 2020. Nothing has been mentioned in the reply so
as to justify the said delay in releasing of the pensionary benefits. In the
absence of any justification given by the respondents, it has to be held that
the delay is to be attributed to the respondents.
As per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of
this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3)
SCT 468, an employee is entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits
within a reasonable time of his/her retirement and the reasonable time fixed
by the Hon'ble Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra) is two months
after the retirement and in case of default, it has been held that the employee
needs to be compensated by the award of 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
3 of 5
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."
In the present case, the chart which has been reproduced in the
preceding paragraph, shows that the delay in releasing the amount except an
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- released on 31.03.2015, is more than two months
from the date of retirement of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is
squarely covered for the grant of interest on the amount, which has been
released to the petitioner thereafter.
Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in of J.S. Cheema
Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an
amount for which an employee was entitled, has been retained and used by
the respondents, employee will be entitled for the interest. 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
4 of 5
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."
In the present case, the amount which has been paid starting
from 02.03.2016 onwards, has been retained by the department and that too
without any valid justification and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
the grant of interest on the said delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner for the
grant of interest on delayed release of payment is allowed. The petitioner is
held entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date, the amount
became due till the same is released except the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-,
which was released to him on 31.03.2015. Let the amount of interest for
which the petitioner becomes entitled under this order be calculated by the
respondents within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy
of this order and the amount so calculated shall be paid to the petitioner
within a period of 15 days thereafter.
Writ petition is allowed in above terms.
February 16, 2021 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
kanchan JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
