Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through ... vs Jagbir Singh on 18 January, 2023
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
104 RSA-5600-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision :18.01.2023
State of Haryana and others ...Appellants
Versus
Jagbir Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana for the appellant-State.
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-14792-C-2017
The present application has been filed for condonation of delay
of 42 days in filing the present appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 42
days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-5600-2017
In the present regular second appeal, the appellant-State is
challenging judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 11.07.2017 by
which, judgment of the trial Court dated 20.05.2016 has been set aside and
the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed so as to grant him
interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.
Certain facts need to be noticed for appreciating the
1 of 6
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -2-
controversy in question. The respondent-plaintiff who was in the service of
the appellant-State attained the age of superannuation and retired on
31.05.2012 and at that time, a charge sheet dated 04.01.2012 which was
issued to him, was pending consideration with the department. After the
retirement of the respondent-plaintiff, another charge sheet dated
25.04.2013 was issued to him and keeping in view the pendency of the
charge sheet dated 04.01.2012, the leave encashment as well as gratuity of
the respondent was withheld by the department and after the charge sheets
dated 04.01.2012 as well as dated 25.04.2013 came to be decided on
08.05.2014, punishment of 'censure' was imposed upon the respondent in
respect of both the charge sheets. After the conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings in the month of May, 2014, the benefit of gratuity and leave
encashment was released to the respondent in July, 2014 i.e. within a period
of two months of the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The
respondent-plaintiff claimed interest on the delayed release of the benefit of
gratuity and leave encashment as the same were not extended to the
respondent-plaintiff by the department within the specified time after his
retirement. Respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming the benefit of
interest, which civil suit came to be decided on 20.05.2016 by the trial
Court and keeping in view the evidence led, it was held that there was no
delay in releasing the benefits to the respondent/plaintiff as the same were
withheld with a valid justification i.e. due to the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/plaintiff.
The judgment of the trial Court was assailed by respondent-
plaintiff before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court
vide order dated 11.07.2017 allowed the appeal holding that once the
2 of 6
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -3-
respondent-plaintiff had retired on 31.05.2012, there was no valid
justification with the department to withhold the benefits of gratuity and
leave encashment as the same was the property of the respondent-plaintiff.
Hence, the respondent-plaintiff is entitled for interest on the delayed release
of the gratuity and leave encashment by the department. The said order of of
the Lower Appellate Court is under challenge in the present regular second
appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State argues that interest can
only be given to an employee on the delayed release of payment in case
there was no valid justification with the department to withhold the retiral
benefits whereas, in the present case, it has already come on record on the
basis of the evidence that there was a charge sheet dated 14.01.2012
pending against the respondent-plaintiff at the time of his retirement and
even after the retirement, another charge sheet dated 25.04.2013 was issued
to the respondent-plaintiff, which came to be decided on 08.05.2014 and the
respondent-plaintiff was held guilty of the allegations and was imposed
punishment of 'Censure'. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits
that keeping in view the said fact, it cannot be said that withholding of the
pensionary benefits by the department after retirement of the
respondent/plaintiff was contrary to the settled principle of law settled by
the Full Bench of this Court in LPA No.113-2012 titled as Punjab Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited and others vs. Pyare Lal decided on
11.08.2014.
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that
3 of 6
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -4-
though, there were proceedings pending against the respondent but it was
the duty of the appellant-State to decide the same expeditiously and as the
appellant-State took approximately two years time to decide the said charge
sheets, respondent-plaintiff has suffered prejudice, which has rightly been
compensated by the trial Court by granting interest for the delayed release
of the pensionary benefits to the respondent-plaintiff therefore, no
interference is needed by this Court qua the order passed by the Lower
Appellate Court and the appeal filed may kindly be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
In the present case, it is undisputed fact that on the date when
the respondent retired from service i.e. 31.05.2012 there was charge sheet
dated 04.01.2012 pending against him. Once, the disciplinary proceedings
against an employee is pending, keeping in view the rules governing the
service, appellant-State was well within its jurisdiction to withhold the
gratuity as well as leave encashment of the respondent, which action of the
appellant-State is also supported by the Full Bench of this Court in Pyare
Lal (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been able
to dispute the factum of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent-plaintiff on the date of his retirement as well as rules governing
the aspect of withholding the benefit of gratuity and leave encashment in
case disciplinary proceedings are pending. That being so, it cannot be said
that withholding of benefits of gratuity as well as leave encashment of the
respondent-plaintiff by the appellant-State is without any justification or
against the rules governing the service or settled principle of law.
4 of 6
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -5-
Further, this Court has to ascertain whether keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the present case, there was any delay on the part
of the appellant-State in releasing the pensionary benefits of the respondent-
plaintiff so as to entitle him for interest for the said delay.
It is a conceded position that disciplinary proceedings which
were pending against the respondent-plaintiff came to an end on 08.05.2014
and the respondent-plaintiff was held guilty of the allegations and was
imposed a punishment of 'Censure' and withheld pensionary benefits were
released to the respondent-plaintiff in July, 2014. This fact clearly shows
that there was no delay on the part of the appellant-State in releasing the
pensionary benefits of the respondent-plaintiff and after the conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, the pensionary
benefits of the respondent-plaintiff which were withheld by the appellant-
State were released to him. That being so, it cannot be said that there was an
inordinate delay in the release of the pensionary benefits to the respondent-
plaintiff so as to entitle him with the grant of interest on delayed released
payments.
With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff that department should have concluded the disciplinary
proceedings earlier so that the same should not have caused prejudice to the
respondent-plaintiff, nothing has come on record that any grievance was
raised by the respondent-plaintiff at any given point of time during the
pendency of the disciplinary proceedings hence, it cannot be said that there
was a delay on the part of the appellant-State to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings, which were pending against the respondent-plaintiff. Hence,
the grant of interest by the Lower Appellate Court is without appreciating
5 of 6
RSA-5600-2017 (O&M) -6-
the fact that the appellant-State was well within its jurisdiction to withhold
the pensionary benefits of the respondent-plaintiff and the same is in
consonance with the rules governing the services as well as the settled
principle of law. Hence, order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Lower
Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court dated
20.05.2016 is ordered to be restored.
Present regular second appeal stands allowed.
CM-14793-C-2017 and
CM-4049-C-2018
Applications are disposed of.
January 18, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
