Krishan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1718 P&H

CWP-27780-2018                                                                -1-

239
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                      ****
                                                CWP-27780-2018
                                                Date of Decision: 16.03.2022
                                      ****
Krishan Kumar
                                                                     ..... Petitioner
                                     Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                                  ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana.

                          ****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

In the present case, prayer of the petitioner is that his pensionary

benefits were released after a delay, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for

the grant of interest on the said delayed release of payments. Further prayer of

the petitioner is that even on the delayed release of the medical reimbursement

to him, he should be paid interest by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to the fact

that employee is not entitled to interest for delayed release of medical

reimbursement passed in "Om Prakash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and

others", 1996(11) SCC 399,, the petitioner is not pressing his claim for the

grant of interest on the medical reimbursement bill.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on the delayed

release of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, he may kindly be granted

1 of 3

the interest, keeping in view the judgment of Full Bench of this Court passed

in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others", 1997(3) SCT 468,

according to which, an employee is entitled for the grant of interest in case the

pensionary benefits are not released to him within a period of two months from

the date of his retirement, in case there is no impediment. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further submits that as in the present case, there was no

impediment, still there is a delay in release of the pensionary benefits to the

petitioner, therefore, he may kindly be extended the benefit of interest on the

said delayed payment.

Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply,

wherein it has been stated that the petitioner retired from services on

31.01.2016 and as per the Rules, the petitioner is liable to submit his pension

papers six months prior to his retirement, whereas in the present case, the

petitioner submitted his pension papers only on 03.10.2016, i.e. after nine

months of his retirement, and therefore, the delay in release of the pensionary

benefits is attributable to the petitioner only, and not to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the pay of the

petitioner was not being fixed correctly by the respondents, therefore, the

petitioner submitted his pension papers in October, 2016 only.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the records with their able assistance.

For the grant of interest on the delayed pensionary benefits to the

petitioner, the finding has to be recorded that the respondents were liable for

the said delay. In the present case, it is a conceded position that the petitioner

submitted his pension papers nine months after his retirement, whereas those

2 of 3

pension papers were supposed to be submitted six months prior to the date of

his retirement. That being so, the delay in submitting the papers is entirely

upon the petitioner. Once the pension papers have been submitted after nine

months of the retirement, it is only after the submission of those papers that

case of the petitioner for the grant of pension is to be processed by the

concerned authorities, which takes time.

That being so, the delay which has occurred in the present case in

the release of pensionary benefits of the petitioner cannot be attributed to the

respondents so as to grant the petitioner the interest as being claimed by him in

the present petition.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is

made out for the grant of interest on the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

16.03.2022                          (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Bhumika                                     JUDGE

             1. Whether speaking/reasoned:       Yes
             2. Whether reportable:              No




                                        3 of 3