Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpa Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 March, 2022
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 232)
(1) CWP No. 1976 of 2020
Date of Decision: 15.03.2022
Kirpa Ram
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
(2) CWP No. 18434 of 2018
Lal Chand
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
(Through Video Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No. 1976 of 2020.
Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No. 18434 of 2018.
Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, A.A.G., Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which
have been given above, are being disposed of as both the writ petitions
involve the same question of law as to whether the petitioners are entitled
for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
For the purpose of the present order, the details are being taken
1 of 6
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
from CWP No. 1976 of 2020 titled as Kirpa Ram Vs. State of Haryana
and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was
appointed as a Junior Engineer, Mechanical with the respondent-department
on 06.12.1976 and was thereafter promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on
31.12.2007 and while working on the said post, the petitioner retired on
30.04.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the
petitioner argues that at the time when the petitioner retired from service,
there were three complaints, which were pending against him and after
retirement charge-sheets were framed, due to which, the DCRG as well as
commutation of pension was withheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that said charge-sheets, which were framed after the retirement of
the petitioner, were taken to the final conclusion and all the charge-sheets
were dropped and thereafter, the withheld benefits of death-cum-retiral
gratuity amounting to `8,82,387/- as well as the commutation of pension
amounting to `5,96,886/- was released in favour of the petitioner on
14.09.2017. The prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is that as the
petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.04.2013 and the benefits were retained by the respondents for a period of
more than four years, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the
said amount.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply
wherein, in para 10, the following averments have been made :-
"That two charge sheets which were served upon the
petitioner vide Government memos No. 6/23/2013-21E dated
18.10.2014 and No. 6/9/2011-21E dated 24.12.2014, were
2 of 6
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
dropped by the Government vide its orders dated 13.07.2017
and 15.07.2017, respectively. The third charge sheet, which
was served upon the petitioner vide Government memo No.
6/33/2012-21E dated 30.10.2013, was decided by the Principal
Secretary to Government Haryana, Irrigation & W.R.
Department vide its order dated 27.07.2017 holding that-
"Although no charges involving financial loss have been
proved against him. However, it has been observed that
he was negligent and failed to maintain the transparency
in lifting process to some extent. The agency has also
deposited the storage charges at very later stage. Since
the officer has retired from the service, therefore, taking
a lenient view, the competent authority has decided to
drop the charges against Sh. Kirpa Ram, SDO (now
Retired) contained the above said memorandum."
After decision of above said charge-sheets, DCRG
amounting to Rs. 8,82,387/- and commutation of pension
amounting to Rs. 5,96,886/- were got released in favour of the
petitioner vide Accountant General (A&E), Haryana,
Chandigarh vide letters dated 14.09.2017 by the pension
sanctioning authority i.e. Executive Engineer M/Garg WS
Mechanical Division, Narnaul. "
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the charge-
sheets were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement,
certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner were rightly withheld and,
therefore, when the petitioner was exonerated, the same has been released
without any delay hence, the claim 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.
It is a conceded fact in both the petitions that at the time of
3 of 6
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
retirement of the respective petitioners, there were complaints pending and
the charge-sheets framed upon them after their retirement, due to which,
certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner(s) were withheld but upon re-
consideration, the respondents found that the allegations could not be
substantiated and the charge-sheets were dropped. That being so, it is clear
that the allegations, which were alleged against the petitioner(s) by the
respondents, could not be proved by the respondents themselves, whereas
for the said action of the respondents, the petitioner(s) suffered prejudice as
they were not able to get their retiral benefits immediately after the
retirement and could not use the amount to their benefit for sufficiently long
time.
Once the Department alleged allegations against the
petitioner(s) and on the basis of those allegations, the amount for which the
petitioner(s) became entitled upon their superannuation was withheld, and
the Department failed to substantiate those allegations, therefore, the
issuance of the charge-sheets or pendency of the same cannot cause
prejudice to the petitioner(s). The acts which are attributable to the
respondents cannot cause prejudice to an employee as firstly by withholding
the pensionary benefits on the basis of pendency of the charge-sheets issued
by the Department alleging certain allegations and thereafter, by denying
the grant of interest on the delayed payments, despite the fact that the
employee was found innocent as the Department concerned failed to prove
those allegations.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, once
the petitioner(s) are found innocent of the allegations and have suffered
prejudice only due to the actions of the respondent-Department as the
4 of 6
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
petitioner(s) were prevented from availing their pensionary benefits upon
their retirement for a sufficient long period of time and petitioner(s) could
not use those financial benefits to their benefit, the petitioner(s) become
entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payments to mitigate the
prejudice/hardship suffered by them, which is in consonance of settled
principle of law.
A co-ordinate Bench while passing order in CWP-15867-2001
titled as "J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and others", decided on
20.11.2013, held that even where an amount has been retained by a
Government Department, which actually belonged to the employee, and has
used the same to its benefit, and the employee has suffered prejudice due to
the non-release of the said amount, the employee becomes entitled for the
grant of interest, so as to compensate him for the said prejudice. 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"
5 of 6
CWP No. 1976 of 2020 and other connected case
In the present case also, the amount which was retained by the
respondent-Department under the pretext of pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner(s) has been used by the Department to its
benefit and hence, the case of the petitioner(s) for grant of interest on the
delayed payments is covered by the above said ratio given by the learned
co-ordinate Bench of this case.
In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed. The
petitioner(s) are found entitled for interest on the retiral benefits, which
were withheld and have been released after a delay, @ 6% per annum from
the date the amount became due till it was actually released.
Let the calculation of the interest under this order be done
within a period of two months and the amount so calculated be released to
the petitioner(s) within a period of four weeks thereafter.
15.03.2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
2. Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
