Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 July, 2022
CWP-7062-2016 -1-
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-7062-2016
Date of Decision: 04.07.2022
Randhir Singh (since deceased) Th. LRs.
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
In the present petition, prayer of the petitioner is for the
issuance of direction to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits,
for which he became entitled for upon his retirement on 30.04.2015, along
with the interest on the delayed release of said pensionary benefits to him by
the respondent-Department. Further prayer of the petitioner is for the grant
of benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme after rendering 4, 9
and 14 years of service by him with the respondent-Department, and
thereafter, revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner along with the
grant of arrears.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now, all
the pensionary benefits, for which the petitioner was entitled for, have
1 of 4
already been released in his favour by the respondent-Department, but the
said pensionary benefits were released after a delay, hence the petitioner's
claim for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of pensionary
benefits in his favour by the respondent-Department survives.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the claim
of the petitioner for the grant of benefit under the Assured Career
Progression Scheme also subsists.
Learned State counsel submits that once the benefits, for which
the petitioner became entitled for upon his retirement on 30.04.2015, have
already been released to him by the respondent-Department, the present
petitioner has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts with the aforesaid
averment and submits that claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest on
the delayed release of pensionary benefits by the respondent-Department is
correct in the favour of the petitioner, keeping in view the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court passed in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab
and others", 1997(3) SCT 468.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner retired
from the service on 30.04.2015 and nothing has been brought to the notice
of this Court that there was any impediment in releasing the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner to him by the respondent-Department. That being
so, the petitioner was entitled for the release of his pensionary benefits to
him by the respondent-Department within the stipulated period of two
months of his retirement, failing which, the petitioner is entitled for the
2 of 4
grant of interest, keeping in view the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court passed in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra), wherein it has been stated
that an employee, who has not been released the pensionary benefits within
a period of two months from superannuation, if there is no impediment in
releasing the said pensionary benefits to him/her, becomes entitled for the
grant of interest for the delay in releasing of the pensionary benefits. The
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
" - x - x -
8. 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 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. ...
- x - x -"
Keeping in view the above, it is clear that the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents without any
valid jurisdiction, hence in order to compensate the delay that occurred in
releasing the said pensionary benefits to the petitioner, which is totally
attributable upon the respondents themselves, the petitioner is held entitled
3 of 4
for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of the pensionary
benefits at the rate of 6% per annum starting from 01.07.2015 till the date of
actual payment of the same to the petitioner.
Let the computation of interest, for which the petitioner
becomes entitled for under this order, be carried out within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the interest so
calculated be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner
within a period of next one month.
As far as the claim of the petitioner for the grant of benefit
under the Assured Career Progression Scheme is concerned, let the legal
representatives of the petitioner file a detailed representation before the
Director, Department of Local Government, Punjab, who will look into the
said representation and decide the same within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of the said representation. In case after the decision, the
petitioner is found entitled for the grant of any relief, the same be released
to the legal representatives of the petitioner within a period of one month
thereafter.
Allowed in the above terms.
04.07.2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
2. Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
