Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmatama Ram vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101192
CWP-9676-1994 2023:PHHC:101192 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) CWP-9676-1994
Date of Decision : August 04, 2023
Parmatama Ram .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, with
Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2) by which, the petitioner was allowed to cross
efficiency bar w.e.f. 13.01.1975 but only notionally and no arrears of salary
has been granted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the
petitioner has been allowed to cross the efficiency bar with retrospective
effect, the petitioner is entitled for the arrears as the petitioner was in
service during the said period and discharging his duty.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of
notional benefit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not
arise hence, the impugned order dated 23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2) is liable
to be set aside qua the denial of the arrears of the salary, which the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101192
petitioner became entitled for after the crossing of efficiency bar by
increasing his salary from Rs.170 to Rs.178 per month.
4. Learned State counsel submits that thought it is a matter of fact
that by the impugned order dated 23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2), the efficiency
bar of the petitioner has been allowed to be crossed from the due date but it
is also a matter of fact that the case of the petitioner was considered every
year for the crossing of the efficiency bar after the year 1975 but he was not
found fit hence, the order dated 23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2) is to run
prospectively and the grant of arrears have rightly been declined.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a conceded fact that the petitioner reached a stage in the
service career so as to cross efficiency bar for fixing the pay scale while
working on the post of Inspector. Vide order dated 23.04.1985 (Annexure
P-2), the respondents have granted the said benefit with retrospective effect
from the date the petitioner was entitled for crossing of the efficiency bar
and his pay had also been increased from Rs.170 to Rs.178/- per month
from the due date i.e. 13.01.1975. Once, the benefit of crossing efficiency
bar has been extended with retrospective effect i.e. 13.01.1975, the denial of
the arrears of salary to the petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal and
without any valid justification especially when the petitioner was in service
during the said period and was discharging his duties. Once, the petitioner
has been found entitled for higher pay and the petitioner has already
discharged the duties for the said period, the benefit of higher pay should
be given by award of arrears as well.
7. The argument of the learned State counsel that the claim of the
petitioner was considered for crossing of the efficiency bar every year but
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101192
he was not found fit till the passing of the order Annexure P-2 in the year
1985 hence, the same has to be prospective, cannot be accepted as in the
impugned order, the benefit has been given to the petitioner with
retrospective effect i.e. from 13.01.1975. Hence, the argument being raised
by the learned State counsel is contrary to the language of the order dated
23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2) and cannot be accepted.
8. Keeping in view the above, the condition imposed in the order
dated 23.04.1985 (Annexure P-2) that the petitioner will not be paid any
arrears for the period 13.01.1975 till 18.01.1983 after allowing the crossing
of the efficiency bar with retrospective effect is held to be bad and is set
aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the arrears for
which he becomes entitled for in pursuance to the crossing of the efficiency
bar from 13.01.1975.
9. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner had already
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1991
but his pensionary benefits were delayed by a period more than two months
hence, he is entitled for interest on the delayed release of pensionary
benefits as well. He has mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition the dates
on which the actual payments were made, which fact has gone un-rebutted
by the respondents while filing the reply.
10. As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the
employee is entitled for the release of pensionary benefits within a period
of two months from the date of the retirement, in case there is no
impediment failing which, the employee will be entitled for the grant of
interest so as to compensate the delay. The relevant paragraph of said
judgment is as under:-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101192
"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 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."
11. In the present case, keeping in view the averments made in
paragraph 9 of the writ petition, which have gone un-rebutted, the delay in
release of the pensionary benefits is more than two months hence, the
petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed
release of pensionary benefits from the date the entitlement accrued for the
release of the pensionary benefits till the actual disbursement of the same.
The petitioner is held entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
retirement till the actual release of the pensionary benefits. Let the order be
complied with within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of
this order.
12. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
August 04, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101192
4 of 4
