Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 31 March, 2022
CWP No.3720 of 2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3720 of 2018
Date of Decision:-31.03.2022
Gurmail Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kannan Malik, AAG, Punjab
assisted by Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, Assistant Director,
O/o DPI(S), S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for the release of the
pensionary benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled for and also for
quashing the order dated 08.6.2012 (Annexure P-2), whereby the
respondents restricted the provisional pension to 90% of the entitlement of
the petitioner.
The facts, as stated in the present petition are that the petitioner
attained the age of superannuation while working as a Principal with the
Education Department, Punjab, on 31.07.2015. The petitioner was granted
extension in service for a period of one year upto 31.07.2016 but as the
petitioner was facing criminal proceedings, vide order dated 14.06.2016, the
1 of 7
extension granted to the petitioner was cancelled and he was retired from
the service from the date of the said order. It is conceded position that on
the date when the petitioner retired from service, the petitioner was facing
criminal proceeding in respect of FIR No.16 dated 02.03.2014, under
Sections 306, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Malaud, Police
District Khanna, District Ludhiana. After retirement, the petitioner became
entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits and General Provident Fund as
well as amount of General Insurance Scheme, which benefits were released
to the petitioner on 06.05.2016 itself i.e. in the month of May 2016 itself
prior to the date the petitioner's extension in service granted to the
petitioner was cancelled. The leave encashment, for which the petitioner
was entitled for was released to him on 06.12.2016 and as the criminal
proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the respondents decided
only to grant 90% provisional pension to him vide order dated 08.06.2017,
which provisional pension was increased to 100% vide order dated
28.02.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even as of now,
the gratuity, for which the petitioner became entitled for, has not been
released to him only due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings
against him. Unfortunately, the petitioner died awaiting release of
pensionary benefits, on 13.06.2021 and the information with regard to the
said fact was brought to the notice of the Department on 17.09.2021 but
even as of now, the family pension in favour of the widow of the petitioner
is yet to be extended. As of now, the 100% pension being paid to the
petitioner, is to be regularized and the gratutity amount, for which the
2 of 7
petitioner was entitled in respect of the services rendered with Educational
Department, is yet to be released and the family pension in favour of the
widow is also yet to be released by the respondents apart from the interest,
if any, for which the petitioner was entitled for on the delayed release of
pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as there
were criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of his
retirement, the Department was well within its jurisdiction to stop certain
pensionary benefits and therefore, the amount of gratuity, which has been
withheld by the respondents, is within their jurisdiction. The learned
counsel for the respondents further submits that though, the other
pensionary benefits have already been released, but the delay is procedural
and not intentional and therefore, the petitioner will not be entitled for the
interest on the said payments. Learned State counsel submits that keeping
in view the instructions given to him by Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, Assistant
Director, O/o DPI(S), S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab, within a period of next two
weeks, all efforts will be made and not only the gratuity for which the
petitioner is entitled for, will be released to his widow but even the family
pension, for which the sanction has already been given, will be released in
favour of the widow.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and have gone
through the papere book myself.
The question, which arises for determination in the present
proceedings is whether the pension of the petitioner could have been
stopped due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings or not. A Full
3 of 7
Bench of this Court in Dr. Ishar Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,
1994(1) SCT 563, has categorically held that the employee has to be paid
100% provisional pension even if any proceedings are pending against the
said employee and the liberty to retain the pensionary benefits is only
limited to the leave encashment and the gratuity. That being so, learned
counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out that under what
provision of law or which settled principle of law gave the jurisdiction to
the respondents to withhold the pension, for which the pensioner is entitled
for. That being so, not extending 100% provisional pension to the
petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents.
With regard to the grant of gratuity, the same could have been
withheld by the respondents due to the pendency of criminal proceedings,
which was being faced by the petitioner at the time of his retirement, which
proceedings are pending even as of now. Unfortunately petitioner has died
on 13.06.2021 and by the said date he was not held guilty, hence no benefits
of the petitioner can be withheld by the respondents any further and the
widow of the petitioner is entitled for the grant of gratuity amount forthwith
without any further delay.
Further, as , the petitioner was never held guilty prior to his
death even in criminal case, the pendency of the same cannot cause
prejudice to him and therefore, he will be entitled for interest on the said
release of gratuity amount as well keeping in view the settled principle of
law settled by Co-ordinate Bench in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana,
2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 , the relevant paragraph of which is as under :-
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is
4 of 7
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."
Further, a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State
of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, has held that employees are
entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time
of their retirement unless there is a justifiable cause to withheld the same.
In the present case, there was no justifiable cause with the respondents to
retain the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 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
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
5 of 7
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."
In the present case, the leave encashment of the petitioner was
released after a delay of more than two months, the similar is the case with
regard to the grant of pension. That being so, the delay is attributed to the
respondents as nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that
there was any impediment in release of those benefits.
Keeping in view the settled principles of law noticed
hereinbefore in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra) and J.S. Cheema's case
(supra), the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the
delayed release of pensionary benefits such as leave encashment, arrears of
pension, gratuity as well as the family pension, which have not been
released to the widow of the petitioner despite the fact that the same should
have been released to her within a period of two months of the death of the
petitioner. The widow of the petitioner would be entitled for an interest
@6% per annum on the pensionary benefits except GPF and GIS from the
date the amount became due till the release of the same.
As, two benefits, such as the family pension and gratuity are
yet to be released, the office of the Accountant General, Punjab is directed
to conclude the process of grant of the said benefits in favour of the widow
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,
failing which, the delay, if any, will be attributable to the office of the
Accountant General, Punjab, for which they might be liable to pay interest
6 of 7
from their own pocket.
The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
March 31, 2022 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
7 of 7
