Karamjit Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs The Pepsu Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15344 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

232                                                CWP No.12994 of 2021
                                                   Date of decision: 30.11.2022
Karamjit Singh (deceased) through his LR and others

                                                        ....Petitioners
                                           V/s

The PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and another
                                              ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:      Mr. Hardeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. APS Sandhu, Advocate for the respondents.
                                          *****
VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral)

This petition has been preferred under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on account of

delay in payment of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pensionary

benefits of the petitioners were not released to them soon on their retirement

but after inordinate delay. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for grant of

interest for the delay in making payments, keeping in view the principle of

law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of

Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468. In the said dictum, it is specifically

held that in case pensionary benefits have not been released within a period

of two months from retirement without there being any impediment for

release of the same, the retire is entitled for grant of interest.

Upon notice of motion, short reply by way of affidavit has been

filed wherein the factual position noticed above, has not been denied.

1 of 3

Rather it has been explained that delay is neither intentional nor deliberate

but due to paucity of funds on account of financial crunch being faced by

Financial Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly

situated employees have already been granted interest on the delayed release

of pensionary benefits and thus, the respondent-Corporation is under an

obligation to grant the same benefit of interest in terms of the Full Bench

judgment (supra).

It is also urged that non-payment of retiral dues on the ground

of weak financial position is not tenable in law, as held by a Division Bench

of this Court in Ram Karan vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport

Corporation and another, 2005(3) PLR 580.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioners had earlier raised a justice demand notice dated 25.05.2021

(Annexure P-8), which is still pending consideration with the respondent-

Corporation. In view of the above, it is stated that the petitioners will be

satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to take a

decision on the aforesaid legal notice, in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in

view the above noticed submissions, respondent No.2 being the competent

authority will decide the claim raised in the legal notice dated 25.05.2021

(Annexure P-8), in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within

the stipulated time. It has also been assured that there would be no

discrimination between the petitioners and other employees insofar as their

claim for payment of interest raised in the legal notice is concerned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 of 3

In view of the above submissions and the restricted prayer

made, without expressing any opinion or going into the merits of the case or

the claim being made by the petitioners in the present petition or in the legal

notice, respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to consider and

decide the claim made in the legal notice dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-8),

in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to observe that in case, after the decision, petitioners

are found entitled for any benefits, the same be paid to them within a period

of four weeks thereafter, as per law.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                                    (VIKAS SURI)
                                                       JUDGE
November 30, 2022
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                               3 of 3