Punjab-Haryana High Court
Versha Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 March, 2022
CWP-8424-2018 -1-
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU NJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-8424-2018
Date of Decision: 21.03.2022
Versha Kumari
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.
(Through Video Conference)
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed for release of the retiral
benefits to the petitioner along with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner
retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015 and despite the
fact that Pension Payment Order was issued on 02.09.2015, but no pension
was released to the petitioner and the same was paid to the petitioner for the
first time on 29.01.2016, after a period of one year, approximately.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the
commuted value of the pension was also paid in January, 2016 and the
gratuity was released to the petitioner in March, 2016. Learned counsel also
submits that the provident fund amounting to Rs.9,73,153/- was paid to the
1 of 4
petitioner on 21.11.2017, and therefore, as there is a delay in releasing of
the retiral benefits, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the
said delayed payments, keeping in view the settled principle of law as laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others", 1997(3) SCT 468, wherein it has been stated that an
employee who has not been released the retiral benefits within a period of
two months from superannuation despite there being no impediment,
becomes entitled for the grant of interest for the delay in releasing of the
pensionary benefits.
Learned State counsel submits that there was a procedural delay
in the release of the retiral benefits but as the same was not intentional, the
petitioner will not be entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed
release of payments.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
The question of release of the retiral benefits to the employee
has already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa's case (supra) wherein it is stated that an employee who has not
been released the retiral benefits within a period of two months from
superannuation without there being any impediment becomes entitled for
the grant of interest for the delay in releasing of the retiral benefits. The
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
" - x - x -
8. 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
2 of 4
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 from 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
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. ...
- x - x -"
Further, 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 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
3 of 4
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"
Keeping in view the above, in the present case, there is a delay
beyond the period of 2 months and that is without any justification. There
was no impediment in the release of the retiral benefits to the petitioner.
Even otherwise, the retiral benefits were retained by the respondents and
used for their own benefits, and therefore, the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the above cited settled principle of law for the grant of
interest in his favour. Hence, the present petition qua the grant of interest is
allowed, the petitioner is held entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the delayed payments of the retiral benefits from the date it was to
be released till the actual payments were released to him.
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 within a period of four weeks thereafter.
21.03.2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
2. Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
