Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar vs Punjab State Power Corporation ... on 24 January, 2023
241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-11275-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.01.2023
SHIV KUMAR
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaipal Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to pay the interest to the petitioner on the delayed
retiral benefits in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Versus State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 (F.B.)
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was working with the respondent-Corporation and he retired as
Lineman on 31.05.2014 and after his retirement, retiral benefits were not
paid to the petitioner and thereafter he was compelled to file writ petition
No.18534 of 2017 seeking directions for payment of pensionary benefits
and this Court vide Annexure P-6 disposed of the petition with a direction
to the Secretary, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala and Chief
1 of 4
CWP-11275-2019 (O&M) -2-
Managing Director, PSPCL, Patiala to look into the grievance laid by the
petitioner and to take a conscious decision in accordance with law and
also with regard to grant of interest on delayed payment in view of the
observations made by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Versus State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 (F.B.) He
submitted that thereafter vide Annexure P-7 an order was passed by the
Additional Superintending Engineer on 21.12.2017 whereby it was
observed that the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner on
31.08.2017 but so far as the grant of interest is concerned, the same was
not granted to the petitioner. He submitted that a perusal of the reply which
has been filed by the respondent-Corporation would show that the
reasoning given by the respondent-Corporation was that the petitioner was
not regularly appearing in the inquiry and was using delaying tactics and
before the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2014 on the basis of
departmental inquiry, he was inflicted a punishment on 11.12.2013
whereby his one annual increment alongwith future effect was stopped.
He, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer which
was ultimately dismissed on 08.03.2016 and that is the reason as to why his
retiral benefits have been delayed. He submitted that this was not
justifiable reason for delaying the retiral benefits of the petitioner and
therefore, he is entitled for the grant of interest.
On the other hand, Mr. Jaipal Sandhu, Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the only reason
which has come up in the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation is that
2 of 4
CWP-11275-2019 (O&M) -3-
the petitioner was not cooperating with the inquiry and his appeal was still
pending at the time his retirement which was ultimately dismissed by the
Superintending Engineer on 08.03.2016 and therefore, it cannot be said that
there was a delay in disbursement of the retiral benefits.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner retired as a Lineman on 31.05.2014 and even
as per the learned counsel for the parties, a punishment order was passed
against him by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.12.2013 by which his one
annual increment with future effect was stopped. Thereafter, the petitioner
had retired in the year 2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said
disciplinary proceedings were still in operation but punishment order had
already been passed prior to his retirement and therefore, there was no
justification for the respondent-Corporation to withhold the retiral benefits
of the petitioner. The mere pendency of appeal itself cannot become a
ground for delaying the retiral benefits of the petitioner particularly in
view of the fact that it was only a functionary of the Corporation i.e.
Superintending Engineer who was to decide the appeal and cannot become
a basis for delaying the retiral benefits. The petitioner was constrained to
file earlier writ petition wherein directions were issued by this Court and
in pursuance thereof, the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner in
the year 2017. The justification given by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Corporation for delay is not sustainable. As of now the retiral
benefits of the petitioner have already been paid but now the scope of the
present petition is only for the grant of interest on the delayed payment.
3 of 4
CWP-11275-2019 (O&M) -4-
In view of the aforesaid factual position and the law laid by a
Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Versus State of Punjab and
others (Supra), the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the
delayed payment.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be entitled for the grant of interest 6% from the date of accrual of the
pensionary benefits till the date of its disbursement. The interest amount
shall be calculated by the respondent-Corporation within a period of two
months from today and shall be paid to the petitioner thereafter within a
period of two months.
24.01.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
