Veena Rani vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1280 P&H

CWP-16062-2021                                                                  -1-

230
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                      ***
                                               CWP-16062-2021
                                               Date of Decision: 20.01.2023


Veena Rani
                                                                    ..... Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                                 ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:     Mr. Harbans Sharma, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. Lavanya Paul, DAG, Punjab.

                          ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, direction or order especially a

writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on

delayed payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner including the Gratuity

and Leave Encashment @ 18% from the date of accrual of retiral benefits

till the actual date of payment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner retired as Senior Assistant on 31.03.2020 from the respondent-

Department and she was infact on extension in view of the policy of the

Government. However, she was paid her retiral benefits after a lapse of

1 of 4

time. The time frame-work pertaining to the date of retirement and the date

of disbursement has been tabulated in Para No.8 of the writ petition. He

further submitted that when the petitioner retired on 31.03.2020, there was

no justification from the State as to why there was a delay in payment of

retiral benefits since these accrued on the date of her retirement and the

delay has not been denied by the State in the reply filed by them nor there is

any justification put forward by the State except that initially there was a

delay because of Covid-19 Pandemic and so far as the delay in giving the

regular pension is concerned, there was a correction of name in the P.P.O.

which was earlier written by the State and for that purpose it was not the

fault of the petitioner, and therefore, she is entitled for the grant of interest

on the delayed payment in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this

Court passed in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others", 1997(3)

SCT 468. He further submitted that so far as the regular pension is

concerned, the same was started on 10.03.2021, which was after the delay of

11 months. However, in the interregnum period after her retirement, she was

given provisional pension only for two months i.e. for the month of April

and May but for the remaining months not even provisional pension has

been paid to her.

On the other hand, Ms. Lavanya Paul, learned DAG, Punjab

while referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that there is no

dispute that the retiral benefits of the petitioner has been paid with delay.

While dealing with the aforesaid three components of the retiral benefits,

she submitted that so far as the Leave Encashment is concerned, the same

was paid to the petitioner on 19.09.2020 even as per the table given by the

2 of 4

petitioner and there was a delay of 6 months and 9 days. She further

submitted that this delay was because in the last week of March, 2020, there

was a complete lockdown in the entire country and thereafter, even curfew

was also imposed for a long period of time, and thereafter, there was a

restrictive functioning of the State Government Offices and therefore, the

aforesaid delay in disbursement of Leave Encashment for 6 months and 9

days was beyond the control of the State Authority and therefore, it cannot

be said that the delay was due to the fault of the State. She also submitted

that so far as the delay of 11 months in Gratuity and regular pension is

concerned, the same was caused because in the initial P.P. Order which was

issued by the State to the Accountant General, there was a mistake in the

name of the petitioner which was thereafter got rectified and in the process

the delay was caused but the petitioner was paid the provisional pension in

the meantime for a period of 2 months.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner retired on 31.03.2020. So far as the component

of Leave Encashment is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same was

paid after a period of 6 months and 9 days because the entire country faced

lockdown, curfews and restrictive functioning for the following months

starting from March, 2020 and therefore, so far as the delay of 6 months in

disbursement of Leave Encashment is concerned, the same cannot be held to

be unjustified and therefore, the argument raised by the learned State

counsel that it was beyond the control of the State Government is just and

reasonable and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the

Leave Encashment.

3 of 4

However, so far as the other two components i.e. Gratuity and

other regular pension are concerned, there was a delay of 11 months and 28

days in disbursement of Gratuity and 11 months in starting of regular

pension. Before that for only two months the provisional pension was paid

to the petitioner. The reasoning given by the learned State counsel relying

upon the affidavit filed by the State was that it was because of the P.P. order

that the name of the petitioner was incorrectly mentioned which was

thereafter rectified and objection raised by the office of the Accountant

General was removed. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid

explanation cannot be accepted because it was not the fault of the petitioner

that some mistake has occurred during the course of communication

between the State and the Accountant General. Therefore, this Court is of

the view that the delay of 11 months and 28 days in disbursement of

Gratuity and 11 months in disbursement of regular pension to the petitioner,

is not justified.

In view of the above and also law laid down by the Full Bench

of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra), the present petition is partly

allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the

delayed payment of Gratuity and regular pension from the date of its accrual

till the date of disbursement. The State shall calculate the aforesaid interest

and pay to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed.

20.01.2023                         (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika                                      JUDGE
              1. Whether speaking/reasoned:      Yes/No
              2. Whether reportable:             Yes/No



                                        4 of 4