Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation ... on 7 July, 2022
CWP-14908-2018 -1-
228
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-14908-2018
Date of Decision: 07.07.2022
Jaspal Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harpal Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Malvika Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents-PSPCL.
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that the
retiral benefits, for which he became entitled for upon his retirement, were
released to him after a delay by the respondent-Department, and therefore,
the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed
release of retiral benefits to him by the respondent-Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner got
retired from the services of the respondent-Department upon attaining the
age of superannuation, i.e. on 30.04.2017, on which date, a show cause
notice, which was issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2016, was pending
consideration with the respondent-Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said show
cause notice was taken to its logical end and appropriate order was passed
on 17.11.2017 by the authorities concerned, imposing a cut of 2% in the
1 of 4
pension of the petitioner for a period of one year. Learned counsel further
submits that after the passing of the said order, there was no other
impediment left in releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner by the
respondent-Department, which benefits should have been released to him
within a period of two months thereafter, but the said benefits were released
to the petitioner in April, 2018 by the respondent-Department, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of
retiral benefits to him by the respondent-Department.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein they have stated that the proceedings were pending against the
petitioner at the time of his retirement, due to which fact, certain retiral
benefits of the petitioner were withheld, which act was well within the
jurisdiction of the respondent-Department.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the show
cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2016, was decided
by the authorities concerned on 17.11.2017, by imposing punishment of 2%
cut in the pension of the petitioner for a period of one year, and thereafter,
appropriate orders were passed by the authorities concerned on 15.03.2018
for releasing the gratuity amount and commutation of pension to the
petitioner, which benefits were earlier withheld by the respondent-
Department and the said benefits were released in favour of the petitioner in
April, 2018 by the respondent-Department, hence it cannot be said that there
is a delay in releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner by the respondent-
Department, which would entitled the petitioner for the grant of interest.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 4
As per the settled principle of law laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court while passing judgment in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others", 1997(3) SCT 468, an employee who has not been
released the pensionary benefits within a period of two months from
superannuation, in case there is no impediment, 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 -"
By applying the said ratio, whenever the impediment ceases to
exist, the employee concerned is entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits
to him/her by the Department within a period of two months of the said
date. In the present case, the impediment due to which the petitioner's retiral
benefits were withheld, ceased to exist on 17.11.2017, hence within a period
3 of 4
of two months of the said date, the respondent-Department should have
released the retiral benefits to the petitioner, but as the said benefits were
released to the petitioner in April, 2018 by the respondent-Department,
therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the said
delayed release of retiral benefits to him.
Keeping in view the above, the present petition is allowed and
the petitioner is held entitled for the grant of interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the said delayed release of pensionary benefits to him by the
respondent-Department from 15.01.2018 till the date of actual payment of
the same to the petitioner in April, 2018.
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 him within a period of next four weeks.
07.07.2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
2. Whether reportable : Yes
4 of 4
