Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Lal Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:058317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.04.2023
Harbans Lal Sharma
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Harbans Lal Sharma, petitioner in person.
Mr. Arun William, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
the respondents to sanction regular pension, gratuity, commutation, GIS and
other retiral benefits of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Mr. Harbans Lal Sharma appearing in person has submitted that
he filed the present petition in the year 2013 and during the pendency of the
present petition, the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner on
different dates and now the scope of the present petition is only pertaining
to grant of interest on the delayed payments which may be granted to him in
view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Versus
State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468. He submitted that he joined
the Department of Co-operation, Punjab on 13.05.1981 at Fazilka and in the
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:058317
year 2003, he was selected in Punjab Civil Services Executive & Allied
Services Exam and was appointed as Employment Officer in the
Department of Employment-respondent No.2 on 12.01.2005 after being
relieved from the Department of Cooperation as he had applied through
proper channel. He submitted that during the period when he was working
in the Department of Cooperation, Punjab, he was inflicted with the
punishment of dismissal from service regarding which he had filed a civil
suit. The civil suit was dismissed but thereafter it was assailed by the
petitioner before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court
however allowed the appeal of the petitioner and the dismissal order was set
aside vide order dated 20.04.1999. The State filed RSA against the aforesaid
judgment which was dismissed and therefore the judgment passed by the
first Appellate Court in favour of the petitioner had attained finality.
Thereafter petitioner filed execution before the learned Executing Court in
which directions were issued on 12.11.2005 that the decree holder is entitled
to due arrears of pay and allowances according to law and an inevitable
conclusion which follows from the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999
is that the decree holder would continue to be in service till another fresh
order is passed according to law and the judgment debtors are directed to
pay due arrears of salary and allowances of the decree holder after
calculating the same in accordance with law till 17.12.2005. The petitioner
submitted that after the decree was passed in his favour by the Appellate
Court, the department did not conduct any de novo inquiry and no fresh
order was passed and in this way, the order setting aside the dismissal order
attained finality. He submitted that against the aforesaid orders passed by the
learned Executing Court, Ferozepur, the State preferred a civil revision
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:058317
No.3678 of 2006 which was dismissed. Thereafter the State preferred an
SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed vide order
dated 19.01.2016. He submitted that during the aforesaid period after the
decree and during the execution proceedings or thereafter there was no
interim order by any higher Court including High Court and Supreme Court
and the respondents were bound to have paid the pensionary benefits to him
after his retirement.
3. The petitioner submitted that as per chart which has been
prepared vide Annexure P-20 depicts the dates on which the retiral benefits
have been received by the petitioner. He submitted that he is aggrieved by
delayed payments pertaining to three components i.e. leave encashment,
gratuity and GIS and so far as the delayed payment in commutation is
concerned, he is not pressing the aforesaid component. He also submitted
that so far as GIS is concerned, there was a dispute between the GIS Credits
while he was in service in the Department of Cooperation which was
ultimately resolved but the Department of Employment Generation did not
pay the aforesaid amount on the ground that some deductions were to be
made. He submitted that so far as the component of GIS is concerned, he
may be permitted to file a comprehensive representation before respondent
No.2 by giving the entire dates and facts and time bound directions be
issued to respondent No.2 to decide the representation on the basis of all
the documents which are to the supplied by him alongwith representation
since detailed facts are involved in the present case. He further submitted
that respondent No.2 should also be directed to consult the office of the
Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab by referring to the record
pertaining to the service rendered by him in the Department of Cooperation
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:058317
pertaining to the GIS credits and thereafter to pass a speaking order within a
time bound manner and for that purpose liberty may be granted to him to
make a representation in this regard.
4. The petitioner submitted that now therefore the only scope left
in the present petition is pertaining to grant of interest on the delayed
payments of leave encashment and gratuity. While referring to the chart
Annexure P-20, he stated that different dates have been provided when the
amount waspaid. He submitted that the aforesaid two components are to be
further divided into two parts. The first part pertains to the service rendered
during the period spent in the Department of Cooperation and second part
relates to the period spent in the Department of Employment Generation.
5. So far as the component of leave encashment is concerned,
the amount of Rs.4,46,931/- was paid pertaining to the undisputed period
spent in the Department of Employment Generation on 10.12.2012 with a
delay of 4 months and 10 days and so far as the remaining period pertaining
to the period spent in the Department of Cooperation, the amount of leave
encashment was paid of Rs. 44,829/- on 28.04.2016 with a delay of 3 years,
9 months and 3 days. So far as the gratuity of the undisputed period spent
in the Department of Employment Generation to the tune of Rs. 6,16,512/- is
concerned, it was paid after a delay of 3 years, 9 months and 3 days and for
the period spent in the Department of Cooperation, an amount of
Rs. 1,79,816/- was paid on 30.11.2016 after a delay of 4 years and 4 months
and after illegally deducting an amount of Rs. 16,795/- and therefore he
should be paid interest on the aforesaid amount.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Arun William, learned AAG, Punjab
submitted while referring to the reply filed by State that so far as the leave
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:058317
encashment of Rs. 4,46,931/- pertaining to the undisputed period spent in
Department of Employment Generation is concerned, the same was paid on
10.12.2012 which was after 4 months of retirement but the delay was caused
because the petitioner himself had submitted the pension papers on
07.06.2012 which was just one month before his retirement whereas he
ought to have submitted the pension papers six months prior to his
retirement in accordance with the instructions issued by the State and
therefore the aforesaid delay of 4 months was justified. So far as the other
amount of Rs. 48,829/- pertaining to the period of service rendered by the
petitioner in the Department of Cooperation is concerned, delay of 3 years
and 9 months has been caused because the petitioner was at litigation with
the Department of Cooperation and the matter was even pending till the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP and the delay was caused due to await the
decision of the SLP. So far as delay in disbursal of amount of gratuity is
concerned, the same was delayed because there was some amount
pertaining to GIS i.e Rs. 16,795/- which was required to be adjusted from the
gratuity and therefore the gratuity was not paid.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The only scope of the present petition is now pertaining to
delayed payments of leave encashment and gratuity. So far as the prayer of
the petitioner with regard to GIS is concerned that he may be granted liberty
to file a separate representation, the same seems to be just and proper and
even the learned State counsel has not objected to the same. Therefore it is
directed that so far as the grievance of the petitioner pertaining to GIS is
concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a comprehensive
representation to respondent No.2 by giving the entire details with regard to
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:058317
the same. In the event of the petitioner filing a comprehensive
representation to respondent No.2, then respondent No.2 shall consult office
of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab alongwith the entire record
pertaining to the period spent by the petitioner in the Department of
Cooperation to his GIS credits and thereafter shall pass a well-reasoned
speaking order within a period of four months from today. Needless to say
that before passing the order, the petitioner shall be granted opportunity of
hearing.
9. So far as the components of leave encashment and gratuity are
concerned, the same is the only subject matter which is to be adjudicated in
the present case for the grant of interest.
10. So far as the component of leave encashment pertaining to Rs.
4,46,931/- as per Annexure P-20, the same was pertaining to the period
which was spent by the petitioner in the Department of Employment
Generation, the same was paid on 10.12.2012 after a delay of 4 months and
10 days. The learned State counsel had stated that it was because the
pension papers of the petitioner were submitted by him just one month
before his retirement whereas it should have been submitted six months
before retirement which caused the delay seems to be just and proper. An
argument was raised by the petitioner that the department did not give the
'No Due Certificate' and that was the reason as to why there was a delay in
submission of pension papers is a disputed question of fact but only fact
remains is the petitioner submitted the pension papers just one month
before his retirement and therefore the aforesaid delay of 4 months and 10
days cannot be termed as unjustified and therefore the petitioner is not
entitled for any interest on the aforesaid component of leave encashment
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -7- 2023:PHHC:058317
pertaining to Rs. 4,46,931/-.
11. So far as the leave encashment of Rs.48,829/- which was of
the period spent in the Department of Cooperation, it was paid to the
petitioner on 28.04.2016 i.e. after a delay of 3 years, 9 months and 3 days.
The justification for delay as given by the learned State counsel was that
since the dispute was pending in the Civil Court and thereafter even before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay was caused. Such an explanation
given by the learned State counsel is not acceptable. The decree was passed
in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1999 whereby his dismissal
order was set aside and rather the Executing Court had directed the State to
pay the arrears and all the dues. Thereafter as per the learned counsel for the
parties, there was no stay or any interim at any stage thereafter even upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the mere fact that an SLP was
pending which was ultimately dismissed cannot become a ground for
withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner pertaining to leave
encashment. The delay of 3 years, 9 months and 3 days is totally unjustified
and for that the petitioner is entitled for interest.
12. So far as the gratuity of Rs. 6,16,512/- pertaining to the
undisputed period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Department
of Employment Generation is concerned, there was a delay of 3 years, 09
months and 3 days and for the amount of Rs. 1,79,816/- which was paid on
30.11.2016, there was a delay of 4 years and 4 months. The learned State
counsel again raised a plea pertaining to the same that the subject matter of
the petitioner pertaining to the Department of Cooperation was pending and
therefore it was delayed with an additional ground that there was one amount
of GIS which was to be recovered from the petitioner and because of that
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
CWP-13321-2013 (O&M) -8- 2023:PHHC:058317
reason the gratuity was not paid and was withheld, is also not sustainable in
view of the fact that gratuity can be withheld only under Rule 2.2 (c) of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II and that can be done only when
there is any judicial or disciplinary proceedings pending but in the present
case admittedly there was neither any judicial nor any disciplinary
proceedings pending against the petitioner nor any order was passed by
office for withholding the gratuity and therefore the payment of gratuity
after a long period of 3 years and 4 years respectively on two components is
not justified and therefore the petitioner is entitled for interest on the same.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for interest on the
following components i.e. leave encashment of Rs. 48,829/-, gratuity of
Rs. 6,16,512/- and gratuity of Rs.1,79,816/- @ 6% per annum w.e.f.
30.09.2012 i.e. after adding two years from the date of retirement till the
disbursement. The respondent No.2 is directed to calculate the aforesaid
amount @ 6% per annum and to pay the petitioner within a period of three
months from today. In case the aforesaid amount is not paid within the
aforesaid period of three months, then the petitioner shall be entitled for
future interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum.
24.04.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058317
8 of 8
