Om Parkash Garg vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6045 P&H

CWP-9898-2016                                                            -1-
224
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                                        ****

CWP-9898-2016 Date of Decision: 04.07.2022

Om Parkash Garg ..... Petitioner Versus

State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed for the grant of interest on

the delayed release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner by the

respondents, after the petitioner got retired from the services of the

respondent-Department on 31.08.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that initially the

petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Government Girls High School,

Ratia (Fatehabad) on 01.08.1979 and thereafter, he joined the Police

Department, Haryana, as a Clerk on 25.02.1982. Learned counsel further

argues that subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed by the Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board as Assistant on 02.04.2004, from which

service, the petitioner ultimately got retired upon attaining the age of

superannuation, i.e. on 31.08.2013.

1 of 4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a

dispute between the aforesaid Departments with regard to the release of

pensionary benefits to the petitioner and the actual sufferer of the said

dispute was the petitioner alone, as despite the fact that the petitioner got

retired on 31.08.2013, still his pensionary benefits, in respect of the services

rendered by him with the respondent-Department, were not released to him

within the stipulated period of two months of his retirement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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, the

petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of

pensionary benefits to him by the respondents.

Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,

wherein they have blamed each other for the delay that has occurred in

releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and

2/State have mentioned that whatever the pro rata contribution was to be

made by the State, the same was given to the Board concerned by the State

for further transmission to the petitioner, but respondent No.3/Board has

submitted that as the said contribution from the State was received late by

the Board concerned, therefore, the same led to further delay in the disbursal

of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

It is not a disputed fact that the petitioner was entitled for the

release of pensionary benefits to him by the respondent-Board within a

period of two months from the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.08.2013, as

2 of 4

there was no impediment in releasing the said pensionary benefits to the

petitioner by the respondent-Board. The release of said pensionary benefits

to the petitioner was delayed due to a dispute between the respondents

themselves. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot be caused prejudice for

an internal dispute between the respondents. The petitioner suffered

prejudice as he did not receive his pensionary benefits within the stipulated

time frame as mentioned 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      -"
                               3 of 4

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

for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of the pensionary

benefits to him by the respondents at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

the said benefits became due 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 petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.

With regard to the liability, firstly respondent No.3-Board shall

pay the interest plus any other outstanding amount to the petitioner, as he

got retired from the service of the said respondent-Board. In case,

respondent No.3-Board feels that it has a right to recover the said interest

from the Government, the said respondent-Board will have full liberty to do

so by approaching the Government in this regard.

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