Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 21 March, 2022
CWP-14400-2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(211) CWP-14400-2016
Date of Decision : March 21, 2022
Rajender Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(Through Video Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed with a prayer that the daily wage
service which the petitioner had rendered, be treated as qualifying service
for computing the pensionary benefits after the petitioner retired from
service on 30.11.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.
After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply. In
the reply, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been found entitled
for counting 6 years and 27 days as a qualifying service out of the total
period claimed and following order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of
1 of 5
this Court on 16.01.2020:-
"As per the reply, the total service period of the
petitioner from 1.2.1986 to 31.1.1996 being 6 years 27 days
was treated as qualifying service of the petitioner after
deduction of the unqualified period which is 3 years 11 months
11 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not
wish to press for counting period i.e. 3 years 11 months 11 days
towards his qualifying service but the respondents are required
to re-fix his pension after taking into account the admitted
qualifying service of 6 years 27 days, which has not been done.
Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for time to seek
instructions and file an affidavit qua counting the qualifying
service of 6 years 27 days towards pension and as to whether
the same has been done or not and if it is done, the detail of the
calculation be placed on record.
Adjourned to 26.3.2020."
Keeping in view the order dated 16.01.2020, an affidavit has
been filed by the respondents stating that the relief has already been
extended to the petitioner and 6 years and 27 days have already been added
to the qualifying service and a sum of Rs.3,83,637/- has already been paid to
the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute
the same.
Keeping in view the above, the grievance as raised in the
present petition has already been redressed and therefore, no further orders
are required to be passed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the relief might have been granted now but as, the petitioner retired
2 of 5
in the year 2014 and the benefit was extended to the petitioner in March,
2016, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the said amount as
un-disputedly, the petitioner was entitled for the relief at the time of his
retirement whereas, the amount has been paid after two years of retirement.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact
that the petitioner was found entitled for calculating his daily wage service
as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits and the
benefits were released to him in the year 2016.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner retired from service
on 30.11.2014 whereas the benefits for which the petitioner was found
entitled for at the time of retirement, were released in the year 2016, there is
an inordinate delay attributable upon the respondents-Department.
As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the retiral
benefits are to be computed and released within a period of two months
from the date of the retirement, in case there is no impediment. 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
3 of 5
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."
Concededly, in the present case, the delay is inordinate delay
in the release of certain benefits, which were released at a later stage in the
year 2016. As the petitioner is not responsible for the said delay and the
same is attributable to the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for the grant
of interest.
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
rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the
State and was being used by it."
Resultantly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is
held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum on the retiral benefits from
4 of 5
01.01.2015 onwards till the date payments were 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 one month
thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
March 21, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
5 of 5
