Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manni Devi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 July, 2022
CM-19580-CWP-2021 in/and CWP-7255-2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(106+277) CM-19580-CWP-2021 in/and
CWP-7255-2021
Date of Decision : July 06, 2022
Manni Devi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate, for
Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-19580-CWP-2021
Present application has been filed for placing on record the
affidavit of Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Malout.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the
same is allowed and affidavit of Executive Officer, Municipal Council,
Malout is taken on record.
CWP-7255-2021
In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
retiral benefits admissible to the petitioner have been paid after a delay,
hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed
1 of 4
release of the pensionary benefits.
As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner retired
from a class IV post on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2020
while serving in Municipal Council, Malout. On the date of his retirement,
the petitioner was given a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs and thereafter, the retiral
benefits were not released and the same were only released by July, 2021.
The prayer of the petitioner is for interest on the delayed release of the
pensionary benefits 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.
In the reply filed by respondent No.4, it has been mentioned
that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid starting on the date of retirement and
thereafter, upto 05.07.2021, all the retiral benefits have been paid to the
petitioner in installments. The averments made in paragraph 8, which gives
the details of payments made to the petitioner, of the reply is as under:-
Sr. No. Cheque No. Dated Amount
1. 235329 30.09.2020 5,00,000/-
2. 511158 08.02.2021 12,466/-
3. 243826 17.03.2021 2,00,000/-
4. 250924 05.07.2021 7,51,188/-
Total 14,63,654/-
Learned counsel for the respondents argues that as all the
payments have been made expeditiously and the delay is only procedural
one due to financial constraints, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of
interest may kindly be declined.
2 of 4
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa's case (supra), an employee is entitled for the release of the
pensionary benefits within a period of two months of the 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
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, no impediment has been brought to the
notice of this Court, which gave jurisdiction to the respondents to withhold
the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Concededly, the delay in release of
the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is more than two months, which
would entitle the petitioner the grant of interest as per the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra).
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
3 of 4
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
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 held entitled for the
grant of interest on the payments which were made beyond the period of
two months of the retirement @ 6% per annum from the date the amount
became due till the release of the same. Let the amount of interest, for
which the petitioner became entitled for, 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.
The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
July 06, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
4 of 4
