Norang Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 798 P&H

CWP-21257-2018                                                                 -1-

238
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                     ***
                                              CWP-21257-2018
                                              Date of Decision: 16.01.2023


Norang Singh
                                                                   ..... Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                                ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:    Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Akansha Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

            Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate for
            Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate,
            for respondent No.4.

                         ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or

any other suitable writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to

release the remaining retiral dues after calculating the Commutation of

Pension, Revised Pay Scale, Leave Encashment, Increments and GPF etc. in

accurate form and further paid interest @ 18% per annum on account of

huge delays in making the payment to the petitoiner without any reason.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

1 of 4

petitioner retired as Daftri from the respondent-State on 31.01.2017 but his

retiral benefits have been paid with a delay. He further submitted that the

Commuted Pension was paid on 01.05.2017 with a delay of 3 months, GPF

was paid on 02.11.2017 with a delay of 9 months, Leave Encashment was

paid on 12.12.2017 with a delay of 10 months and DCRG were paid on

11.08.2017 with a delay of 6 months. He also submitted that no justification

has come forward as to why there was a delay and it is a settled law that

procedural inter se departmental communication does not take away the

right of the employee for grant of interest on the delayed payment in case

there was no fault of the employee. He has relied upon 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 apart from the

aforesaid grievance, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the

respondents in reducing the basic pay after his retirement and regarding

which he may be permitted to file a separate representation before the

competent authority.

On the other hand, Ms. Akshita Chauhan, learned DAG, Punjab

has referred to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and has

submitted that so far as the aforesaid dates are concerned, the same are

correct as per affidavit filed by the State but has submitted that due to

procedure and sending of the bills which were received from the Treasury

the delay has occurred. She further submitted that so far as the payment on

the commuted value of pension is concerned, there was no delay and the

same was paid on 01.05.2017 and 3 months time is a reasonable period of

time during which the payments are made.

2 of 4

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner retired on 31.01.2017. As per the affidavit filed

by respondent Nos.1 to 3, the commuted value of pension was paid to the

petitioner on 01.05.2017, this Court is of the view that so far as this

component of pensionary benefits is concerned, there does not seem to be

delay on this. However so far as the other component of pensionary benefits

are concerned i.e. GPF, Leave Encashment and DCRG, the same were given

to the petitioner after an elapse of 6 to 10 months and the affidavit filed by

the State does not reflect any justification except that the bills were sent to

the Treasury and there were some procedural aspects involved. However,

such reason cannot become a ground for denial of interest to the petitioner.

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

aforesaid amount i.e. GPF, Leave Encashment and DCRG from the dates of

its accrual till the dates of disbursement. The said payment shall be paid to

the petitioner within a period of three months from today.

So far as the other grievance raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to reduction of his pay after retirement is concerned,

this Court does not wish to make any observation with regard to the same as

there was no specific prayer made in the present petition with regard to the

same.

However, without observing anything on the merits of the

grievance of the petitioner pertaining to reduction of pay, he shall be at

liberty to file a representation to the concerned authority in this regard.

3 of 4

The present writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed.

16.01.2023                        (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika                                     JUDGE
             1. Whether speaking/reasoned:      Yes/No
             2. Whether reportable:             Yes/No




                                       4 of 4