Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 March, 2022
CWP No. 467 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(238) CWP No. 467 of 2020
Date of Decision : 14.03.2022
Rajinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, A.A.G., Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is for the
grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits, which
prayer has been declined by the respondents vide impugned order dated
27.11.2019 (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was
compulsorily retired by the respondents by an order dated 31.10.2002
(Annexure P-1). The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing
CWP No. 19416 of 2002 but as the petitioner did not get any interim order,
the petitioner was retired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the petitioner got retired but as he had approached the Court
challenging the action of the respondents, his pensionary benefits were not
being released and that too without any valid justification. Learned counsel
1 of 4
CWP No. 467 of 2020
for the petitioner further submits that petitioner approached the respondents
for granting him the pensionary benefits number of times but of no avail and
it was only after a period of 14 years of the retirement, in 2016 the
petitioner was extended the concession of pensionary benefits and,
therefore, prayer of the petitioner is for the grant of interest for the period,
when the pensionary benefits were retained with the respondent-department
without any valid justification. It may be noticed that while demanding
interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits, even the petitioner
has unfortunately left this world during the pendency of the petition and
now it is the family of the petitioner, who is praying before this Court for
the grant of interest.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned
order is perfectly valid and legal and in the facts and circumstances of this
case, petitioner is not entitled for the grant of interest. Learned counsel for
the respondents further submits that the petitioner was being called by the
respondents number of times to the office so that benefits could be extended
to him and the dates on which the petitioner was called, have also been
mentioned in the impugned order but as the petitioner did not respond to the
request of the respondent-department, the respondents could not release his
pensionary benefits, therefore, the delay is not attributable to the
respondents and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of
interest may kindly be declined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
In the present case, the burden of the delay in release of the
2 of 4
CWP No. 467 of 2020
pensionary benefits is being put by the petitioner and respondents upon one
and another. Keeping in view the averments, which are already on record, it
is a conceded position that the dates on which the respondents had
summoned the petitioner by issuing letters, no such record is available.
That shows that it is a case of one's word against another.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in
CWP-15867-2001 titled as "J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and
others", decided on 20.11.2013, has held that where, the amount of an
employee has been retained by a Government Department, which actually
belonged to the employee, and has used the same to its benefit, the
employee becomes entitled for the grant of interest, even if prima-facie, the
amount retained was not released to the employee without any justificable
reason. The relevant paragraph No.5 of the judgment is as under:-
" x -- x -- x
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 laying 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.
x -- x -- x"
3 of 4
CWP No. 467 of 2020
In the present case, it is not disputed that the amount of
pensionary benefits was retained by the department and used. Though, it
might be difficult to pin point the reason for delay in release of the
pensionary benefits whether the same is attributable to the petitioner or the
respondents but as, the amount was retained by the respondents and used to
their benefits, keeping in view the judgment in J.S. Cheema's case (supra),
the petitioner has become entitled for the grant of interest.
The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above said decision in
his favour for the grant of interest on the delayed payment.
Resultantly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. He is held
entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount became due
till the same is released. 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 14, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
4 of 4
