Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjiv Sood vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 4 July, 2022
CWP No. 14092 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(217) CWP No. 14092 of 2015
Date of Decision : 04.07.2022
Dr. Sanjiv Sood
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for
directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner,
which have been withheld despite the fact that the petitioner retired from
service on 31.12.2013.
As per the petitioner, there was nothing adverse against the
petitioner, which would entitled the respondents to withhold his pensionary
benefits hence, according to the petitioner, the respondents were under
obligation to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith.
After the notice of motion, reply has been filed by the
respondents. In the reply, the respondents have submitted that on the date
when the petitioner retired, there were disciplinary proceedings pending
against the petitioner keeping in view the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2013
1 of 4
CWP No. 14092 of 2015
and, therefore, certain pensionary benefits were withheld, which was within
the jurisdiction of the respondents keeping in view the rules governing the
service. The respondents submitted that after an appropriate order on the
charge-sheet was passed by the respondents, the benefits have been released
to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that
the benefits for which the petitioner was entitled for in respect of the service
rendered by him, have been released to him but submits that the disciplinary
proceedings pending against the petitioner attained finality as appropriate
order on the said proceedings was passed on 06.02.2019 whereas, the actual
benefits were released to the petitioner on 10.12.2019 i.e. after a period of
ten months and hence, for the said period of ten months, the petitioner is
entitled for interest as there was no impediment in the release of the
pensionary benefits.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
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 period of two months of retirement in case, there is no impediment, failing
which the employee is entitled for the grant 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 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
2 of 4
CWP No. 14092 of 2015
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."
Applying the said ratio, wherever the impediment is there, after
the said impediment ceases, the pensionary benefits should be released to
the employee within a period of two months, failing which the employee is
entitled for the grant of interest.
In the present case, it is a conceded position that after
06.02.2019, there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary
benefits hence, by 01.04.2019, all the benefits should have been released to
the petitioner but as the benefits were released to the petitioner in
December, 2019, the petitioner has become entitled for the grant of interest
starting from 01.04.2019 onwards till the actual payment made in
December, 2019.
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 J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -
"In my opinion, even if the assertion made in the written
statement is presumed to be correct it would not disentitle the petitioner
for claiming interest. The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is
3 of 4
CWP No. 14092 of 2015
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."
Keeping in view the above, the petitioner is entitled for the
grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits starting
from 01.04.2019 onwards till the actual payment @ 6% per annum. Let the
amount of interest under this order be calculated by the respondents within a
period of two months of the receipt of copy of this order and the amount so
calculated be released to the petitioner within a period of one month
thereafter.
Petition is allowed in above terms.
July 04, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
