Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Singh Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 9 March, 2022
CWP-21548-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(221) CWP-21548-2018
Date of Decision : March 09, 2022
Bal Singh Sharma .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(Through Video Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed for the grant of interest on the
delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was
appointed as a JE on 03.02.1982 and by his sheer dint of hard-work, he
attained promotion upto the rank of Executive Engineer and ultimately
retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2016. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge sheet was issued against the
petitioner on 05.03.2014 wherein, certain allegation were made against the
petitioner and by the time, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation
and retired, the said charge sheet was pending, the respondents authorities
1 of 5
withheld certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that ultimately after enquiring into the said
charge sheet, an order was passed on 24.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) dropping
the said charges, which were alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that as certain pensionary benefits of the
petitioner were withheld by the respondents due to the pendency of the
charge sheet, which allegations alleged by the respondents-Department,
could not be proved by the said Department, makes the petitioner entitled
for the grant of interest on the delayed payments of pensionary benefits,
which were ultimately released to the petitioner in April, 2018 i.e after
expiry of approximately two years.
Learned State counsel submits that as concededly a charge
sheet was pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement,
withholding of certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner was within the
jurisdiction of the Department and the moment the charge sheet was
dropped, within no time, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, which
were withheld, were released, hence, the claim of the petitioner for the grant
of interest on the delayed payment is not maintainable, keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of this case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
It is a matter of fact that the allegations were alleged against the
petitioner by the Department while issuing a charge sheet dated 05.03.2014.
It is also a conceded fact that respondents took more than two years to
decide those allegations and the petitioner had to face the prejudice as on
attaining the age of superannuation, only due to the pendency of the charge
2 of 5
sheet dated 05.03.2014, certain pensionary benefits admissible to the
petitioner were retained by the respondents. Ultimately, the said charge
sheet was dropped by the respondents vide order dated 24.10.2017
(Annexure P-3). That being so, it is clear that the petitioner was not guilty
in any way of any misconduct but, he could not enjoy the fruit of his
pensionary benefits immediately upon his retirement and has to wait till
April, 2018 for the same.
Once, the respondents failed to prove the allegations, which
they had alleged against the petitioner and due to the said allegations, the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner were retained, upon being declared
innocent, the petitioner becomes entitled to be compensated for the delay as
non-release of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after the petitioner
retired on 31.05.2016, surely has caused prejudice to him. The non-grant of
interest to the petitioner on the retained pensionary benefits, will amount to
putting premium on the action of the respondents, wherein, the allegations
were alleged against the petitioner but the same could not be sustained and
the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner were retained.
A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, has held that an employee is entitled
for the release of his pensionary benefits within a period of two months of
his retirement in case there is no impediment. In the present case, the
impediment was the charge sheet i.e. the allegations were alleged against
the petitioner by the Department, which allegation the Department failed to
prove, therefore, the impediment due to which, the pensionary benefits of
the petitioner were withheld, cannot be treated as a valid impediment in the
facts and circumstances of this case, hence, the petitioner becomes entitled
3 of 5
for the grant of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits. 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."
Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in of J.S. Cheema
Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an
amount belonging to an employee, has been retained and used by the
respondents, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the
interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case
(supra) is as under: -
"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
4 of 5
rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the
State and was being used by it."
The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above said
decisions in his favour for the grant of interest on the delayed payment.
Resultantly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is
held entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum on the payment, which have
been released after a delay of two months of his retirement. The petitioner
will be entitled for interest from 01.08.2016 onwards till the actual
payments will be released to him. Let the computation of interest be done
by the respondents within a period of two months from the receipt of
certified copy of this order and the amount so calculated shall be paid to the
petitioner within a period of three weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
March 09, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
5 of 5
