Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Of Through District ... vs Late Sh, Sikander Pal Singh Head ... on 1 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
CM-6214-C-2023 in/& -1- 2023:PHHC:080262
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-6214-C-2023 in/&
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision :01.06.2023
Punjab State through District Collector, Mansa ...Appellants
and others
Versus
Sikander Pal Singh (deceased) through LRs
and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the appellant-State.
Mr. J.P.S Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-6214-C-2023
Present application has been filed for listing the main regular
second appeal at an early actual date of hearing.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf
of the appellant-State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made
in the present application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which
are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed.
On the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, main
appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
CM-6214-C-2023 in/& -2- 2023:PHHC:080262
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
RSA-629-2020
1. Present regular second appeal has been filed against the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by which, the suit filed by
the respondent-plaintiff for the release of the benefits in respect of the
service rendered by one Sikander Pal Singh, who was working as Head
Constable in the Punjab police along with interest, was allowed.
2. The parties have conceded the factum that except withholding
of a sum of Rs.2,76,400/- from the gratuity of the respondent-plaintiff, the
remaining benefits have already been released to the respondent-plaintiff.
Further, it has already come on record that the amount so deducted, has been
deducted so as to make good the amount of advance, which Sikander Pal
Singh has taken as house building loan from the appellants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that once there was a
house building loan taken by Sikander Pal Singh, he was liable to return the
same and as a sum of Rs.2,76,400/- was pending against him, the same was
deducted from his gratuity.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand
submits that it has already come on record that only a sum of Rs.62,400/-
was remaining to be paid out of the principal loan amount taken by the
respondent-plaintiff whereas Rs.2,76,400/- has been deducted from the
gratuity by the appellants was by adding interest on the said amount of
Rs.62,400/- and that too after the death of the employee concerned. Learned
counsel for the respondent-plaintiff further submits that as per the
instructions qua the recovery of the house loan, in case an employee dies, the
advance given is to be waived off, which benefit has not been extended to
the widow of the employee.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
CM-6214-C-2023 in/& -3- 2023:PHHC:080262
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the amount of advance taken as house loan by an employee
is liable to be made good even after the death of the employee concerned
and as the department has come to the conclusion that a sum of
Rs.2,76,400/-was to be recovered from the respondent-plaintiff, the said
amount has rightly been recovered from the gratuity of the respondent-
plaintiff.
7. On being asked as to whether a sum of Rs.2,76,400/- was
required to be paid out of the principal amount, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the total amount taken as house loan by the
respondent-plaintiff was Rs.3,60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,97,600/-
have already been recovered from the deceased employee from his pay up to
the date he was alive and a sum of Rs.62,400/- which was to be paid back
but as the said amount was not paid back, interest has been imposed upon
the said amount of Rs.62,400/-so as to make a sum of Rs.2,76,400/-, which
was recovered from the gratuity of the respondent-plaintiff.
8. The said submission of the learned counsel clearly go on to
show that only a sum of Rs.62,400/- was required to be paid by the
respondent-plaintiff out of the principal amount. Nothing has come on
record that whether after the death of an employee, interest on the amount
due can be claimed from the retiral benefits of a deceased employee. In the
absence of any document brought on record to support the claim of interest
on the principal amount after the death of an employee concerned, the claim
raised by the appellants so as to recover a sum of Rs.2,76,400/- is without
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
CM-6214-C-2023 in/& -4- 2023:PHHC:080262
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
any valid justification.
9. Further, learned counsel for the appellants concedes the fact that
as per the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab, which are
already on record, after the death of an employee, pending loan amount is to
be waived off. That being so, even a sum of Rs.62,400/- which was yet to be
paid out of the principal amount was required to be waived off whereas,
without considering those instructions, a sum of Rs,2,76,400/- has been
deducted from the gratuity of the Sikander Pal Singh. Said action of the
appellants is not supported by any valid justification or rules governing the
service on the said aspect.
10. Keeping in view the above, no infirmity can be found in the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below so as to call any interference by
this Court.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Courts below have granted the interest @ 18% per annum on the amount to
be refunded which is exorbitant keeping in view the provisions of law and
same needs to be modified.
12. Though, in order to compensate an employee for the prejudice
caused, the Courts are perfectly within its jurisdiction to grant the interest
but while granting the interest at a particular rate, the same has to be
supported by the reasons. In the present case, no reason has come forward
for granting the interest @ 18% per annum by the Courts below. In the
absence of any valid justification given to support the decision, grant of
interest from @ 18% per annum, cannot be accepted.
13. Even otherwise, as per Section 34 of the CPC, the interest can
be granted on the bank rate not exceeding 6% per annum. Learned counsel
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
CM-6214-C-2023 in/& -5- 2023:PHHC:080262
RSA-629-2019 (O&M)
for the respondent has not been able to controvert that keeping in view the
Section 34 of the CPC, the interest cannot be granted beyond 6% per annum,
hence, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified to the
extent that though, the same is upheld qua the grant of interest but the
respondent-plaintiff will be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum instead of
18% per annum on the amount deducted from his gratuity from the date the
same became due till the actual payment is made.
14. Present regular second appeal is disposed of in above terms.
June 01, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:080262
5 of 5
