Punjab-Haryana High Court
Richa Chandna vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099896
CWP-6360-2017 2023:PHHC:099896 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(206) CWP-6360-2017
Date of Decision : August 03, 2023
Richa Chandna .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the
interest upon the arrears of salary/pension for which she was found entitled
for on revision of her pay and consequent pension in respect of the service
rendered by her mother namely Smt. Sushil Prabha Chandna, who was
working as a Lecturer with the respondent-State of Haryana.
2. As per the petitioner, the salary of the mother of the petitioner
was revised by the respondents and the consequent pensionary benefits were
also revised due to which, certain arrears became admissible, which arrears
though have been paid but the interest upon the said arrears have not been
released to the petitioner though, the benefit of interest has already been
granted the benefit of interest by the respondent-Department to a similarly
situated employee namely Dr. R.N. Singh, who was also extended the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099896
similar relief, hence, on the ground of parity, the petitioner be also paid
interest on the arrears of salary/arrears of pension, which has been released
in her favour.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in
view the reply filed by the State, it is a conceded position that Dr. R.N.
Singh was also granted the benefit of revision of pension after the revised
pay scale was allowed in his favour and he was also paid interest on the said
benefit though, according to the Department, the said interest was wrongly
paid to him. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as of
now, the said interest which was paid to Dr.R.N. Singh has never been
withdrawn.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The only question which arise in the present petition is
whether, the mother of the petitioner was entitled for interest on the arrears
of pension after revision of her pay, as allowed in case of similarly situated
employee namely Dr. R.N Singh. Though, the respondents are disputing the
entitlement of Dr. R.N. Singh qua the grant of interest but in the reply, it is a
conceded fact that the interest on the arrears of salary/pension have already
been extended to Dr. R.N. Singh, which benefit has never been withdrawn
from him.
6. Once, a similarly situated employee has already been allowed
the benefit of interest by the Department, the same needs to be extended to
the mother of the petitioner also on the arrears of salary/pension for which
she became entitled for in a similar fashion as in the case of Dr. R.N. Singh.
Hence, denial of the benefit to the petitioner's mother qua the grant of
interest will amount to discrimination, which cannot be permitted even
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099896
otherwise.
7. Even otherwise, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in of J.S.
Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that in
case any amount belonging to a Government employee has been retained
and used by the Department, the employee will become entitled for interest
on the said amount. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as
under:-
"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 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."
8. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that the pay of the
mother of the petitioner was to be revised, which benefit was not granted to
her till she retired from service and ultimately, the benefit of the said pay
revision was extended to the mother of the petitioner and the consequential
benefits of the revision of the pension as well as the pensionary benefits
accrued to the mother of the petitioner. The amount of arrears for which the
mother of the petitioner was entitled for, were retained and used by the
Department till the same was disbursed. Hence, as per the judgment of J.S.
Cheema's case (supra), the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of
interest even independent of the claim of parity with Dr. R.N. Singh.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the
interest is to be granted keeping in view Section 34 of the CPC according to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099896
which, the interest can only be awarded at bank rate being provided by the
nationalized bank and therefore, the interest which was granted in favour of
Dr. R.N. Singh should not be made applicable in the case of the petitioner as
the said benefit was extended to Dr. R.N. Singh inadvertently.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute
that keeping in view Section 34 of the CPC, the interest beyond 6% per
annum cannot be given.
11. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled for interest on the arrears
which have already been released to the mother of the petitioner @ 6% per
annum from the date the payment became due till the actual disbursement of
the same. Let the calculation of the financial benefits qua the interest be
done within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order
and the amount so computed be released to the petitioner immediately.
12. Present petition is allowed in above terms.
August 03, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099896
4 of 4
