Gurtehal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5642 P&H

                                                               Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061477




CWP-3788 of 2019                               -1-                        2023:PHHC:061477

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

218                                                  CWP-3788 of 2019
                                                     Date of Decision:28.04.2023

Gurtehal Singh

                                                                                  ....Petitioner
                                        Versus
State of Punjab and others

                                                                               .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

            ****

Present:    Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Addl. AG, Punjab
            for the respondents.

            ****

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 pay the interest on the delayed payment of GPF and further seeking

a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated

19.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired

on 30.04.2015 and thereafter his GP fund has been unduly delayed by the

respondents. He submitted that he earlier filed a civil writ petition before this

Court bearing CWP No.21950 of 2018 which was disposed with a direction to the

respondents to pass a speaking order on the grievance of the petitioner for grant of

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061477

CWP-3788 of 2019 -2- 2023:PHHC:061477

interest on the delayed payment of GP fund and thereafter the impugned order has

been passed wherein no legally justifiable reason has been given for the delay

caused in the disbursement of GP fund. He submitted that even as per the

impugned order, the GP fund of the petitioner was sanctioned on 21.10.2015 and

the justification given by the respondents with regard to the intervening period

from 30.04 2015 to 21.10.2015 was that the petitioner was asked to give the details

with regard to some advances taken by him earlier or not to which he clarified and

the sanction was granted. Another reason which has been given in the said order is

that the petitioner had applied for GP fund on 26.03.2015 which was only one

month prior to retirement whereby he ought to have applied and supplied the

requisite documents prior to six months of the retirement so that the case may be

processed. Learned counsel submitted that there was no ambiguity in the papers

submitted by the petitioner and therefore the delay was unwarranted. He further

submitted that apart from the above, once the GP fund was sanctioned on

21.10.2015 there was no justifiable reason as to why the same was paid to the

petitioner on 09.03.2016 which was after a period of about five months and

therefore the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest especially in view of the

law laid down by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa verus

State of Punjab and others 1997(3) SCT 468.

3. On the other hand, Ms. Ishma Randhawa, learned Addl. AG, Punjab

while referring to the impugned order and also the reply filed by the State

contended that the petitioner ought to have applied and provided all the requisite

documents by completing the formalities at least six months before the retirement,

it is also mandatory by the instructions issued by the State of Punjab but he

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061477

CWP-3788 of 2019 -3- 2023:PHHC:061477

actually submitted all the documents for the GP fund only on 26.03.2015 which

was only one month prior to the retirement and therefore time is taken to process

the same. He further submitted that therefore after the completion of all the

formalities sanction was made on 21.10.2015 and for that purpose there was no

delay at all. So far as the period from 21.10.2015 to 09.03.2016 is concerned, the

administrative department sent the bill to the office of the Accountant General on

30.10.2015 and thereafter some time was consumed and ultimately and

consequently the GP fund was paid to the petitioner on 09.03.2016 and therefore

there was no delay in the disbursement of the same.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The only claim of the petitioner in the present case is for grant of

interest on the delayed payment of GP fund. The petitioner applied for GP fund on

26.03.2015 by giving all the requisite documents and he retired on 30.04.2015.

Some queries were raised by the department with regard to the advances taken etc.

to which he clarified and ultimately it was sanctioned on 21.10.2015 and paid to

the petitioner on 09.03.2016. The justification put-forth by the State and opting the

impugned order that for the period between 30.04.2015 to 21.10.2015 the fault is

attributable to the petitioner on two grounds i.e. he applied only one month before

the retirement instead of six months and some points were raised which were

normal procedure. The justification put-forth by the State in this regard is fully

justifiable.

6. However, so far as the delay in disbursement of the payment of the GP

fund after the sanction of the GP fund from 21.10.2015, no justifiable reason has

come forth from the State in this regard. Once the GP fund itself has been

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061477

CWP-3788 of 2019 -4- 2023:PHHC:061477

sanctioned, then there was no justification for the State to have delayed for five

months. The plea taken by learned State counsel that it was immediately sent to the

office of the Accountant General and the routine procedure was undertaken cannot

be termed as a good ground for justified delay especially when the GP fund itself

has been sanctioned. The inter-department communications between the

administrative office of the petitioner and the Accountant General is no ground for

making the good justification.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of GP fund with effect

from 21.10.2015 till the date of actual payment on 09.03.2016 @6% per annum.

8. The respondents are directed to calculate the aforesaid amount and

pay to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. In case the

aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of four

months from today, then the petitioner shall be entitled for the future rate of

interest @9% per annum instead of 6% per annum.

                                              (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
                                                      JUDGE
April 28, 2023
dinesh
                   Whether speaking                 :      Yes/No
                   Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061477

                                     4 of 4