Narinder Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1646 P&H

CWP-258-2017                                                      1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(221)                            CWP-258-2017
                                 Date of Decision : March 15, 2022


Narinder Kumar Sharma                                       .. Petitioner



                                 Versus


State of Punjab and others                                  .. Respondents

(Through Video Conferencing)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Harish Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

In the present case, the prayer of the petitioner is for the grant

of interest on the delayed release of the certain pensionary benefits, which

were withheld by the respondents after the petitioner retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an

FIR registered against the petitioner being FIR No.16 dated 20.03.2006,

which was pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement but the

petitioner was found innocent by the competent Court of law vide judgment

dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) and therefore, once the allegations alleged

against the petitioner were not proved, the petitioner is entitled for interest

1 of 4

on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3

submits that the respondents were within jurisdiction to withhold certain

pensionary benefits of the petitioner due to the pendency of the criminal

proceedings, which admittedly was concluded only on 17.02.2014, after

which all the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, were released

to the petitioner without any delay. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3

further submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this

case, 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.

It is a conceded position that on the date when the petitioner

attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007, there were criminal

proceedings pending against the petitioner. That being so, it cannot be said

that the respondents did not had jurisdiction to withhold his pensionary

benefits but as the petitioner was acquitted of the allegations alleged against

him in the criminal proceedings and petitioner was found innocent, the

pendency of the proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of

retirement, cannot come in the way so as to claim the interest on the

pensionary benefits.

Once the Department alleged allegations against the petitioner

and on the basis of those allegations, an FIR was registered against the

petitioner and the amount for which the petitioner became entitled for upon

his superannuation was withheld, and the Department failed to substantiate

those allegations before the competent Court of law, hence, pendency of the

2 of 4

proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent, cannot cause

prejudice to the petitioner. The acts which are attributable to the respondent

cannot cause prejudice to an employee as firstly by withholding the

pensionary benefits on the basis of pendency of the criminal proceedings

initiated at the instance of 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 is found innocent of the allegations alleged and has suffered

prejudice only due to the actions of the respondent-Department as the

petitioner was prevented from availing his pensionary benefits upon his

retirement for a sufficient long period of time and also petitioner could not

use those financial benefits to his benefit, the petitioner becomes entitled for

the grant of interest on the delayed payments to mitigate the

prejudice/hardship suffered by him, which is in consonance of settled

principle of law.

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

3 of 4

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."

In the present case also, the amount which was retained by the

respondent-Department under the pretext of pendency of the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner has been used by the Department to its

benefit and hence, the case of the petitioner 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.

Keeping in view the above, as the respondents had kept the

amount with themselves and used the same, the petitioner becomes entitled

for the grant of interest on the said account itself.

Resultantly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is

held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount

became due till release of the same. 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 four weeks thereafter.

March 15, 2022                          (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                         JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
             Whether reportable       : Yes




                                       4 of 4