Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Kaur vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd And ... on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043120
2024:PHHC:043120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
219+105
CWP-26029-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2024
Davinder Kaur ....Petitioner
V/S
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sahaj Mahajan, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for
Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-16897-CWP-2022
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 of
CPC is for placing on record replication to the written statement filed by
the respondents.
Allowed as prayed for and replication filed by the
petitioner is taken on record.
CWP-26029-2018
1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed
power of attorney in the Court which is taken on record.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-14), whereby a sum
of Rs.6,75,658/- has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043120
2024:PHHC:043120
petitioner on the ground that benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP scales were
wrongly granted to the petitioner and further prayed for payment of
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual till its actual
realisation.
3. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. Teacher in the
scale of Rs.480-880/- vide order dated 09.09.1982 issued by respondent
No.2 and she joined her services on 24.09.1982. The petitioner was
promoted to the rank of B.Ed. Teacher in the scale of Rs.620-1200/-
vide order dated 15.03.1989 and she actually joined to the said post on
15.09.1989. Vide order dated 19.08.2004, upon grant of 1st ACP scale,
the petitioner was placed in the scale of Rs.6300-10700/- and the said
order was made effective w.e.f. 15.09.1999. Thereafter, vide order dated
17.08.2007, upon grant of 2nd ACP scale, the petitioner was placed in the
scale of Rs.7000-11750/-. On attaining the age of superannuation, the
petitioner retired on 31.08.2017. When the retiral benefits were not
released to the petitioner, she served a legal notice upon the respondents
on 31.03.2018 but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, she
approached this Court by filing CWP No.12761 of 2018, which was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2018, with a direction
to the respondents to decide the legal notice, in accordance with law,
within a period of two months and release the retiral benefits in next 45
days. The respondents were also directed to consider payment of
interest over the outstanding amount. Pursuant to the order passed by
this Court, the respondents passed various orders fixing the pay of the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043120
2024:PHHC:043120
petitioner at the time of her retirement and they finally passed speaking
order dated 03.08.2018 mentioning that the 1st ACP and 2nd ACP scales
were wrongly granted to the petitioner. The pay was accordingly re-
fixed and the excess payment worked out as Rs.6,75,658/- was ordered
to be adjusted from whole amount of leave encashment of Rs.4,47,040/-
and from gratuity of Rs.2,28,618/-. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the present petition, the recovered amount of Rs.6,75,648/-
has been refunded to the petitioner vide cheque No.750094 dated
12.07.2023. He submits that since the said amount was wrongly
recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, therefore, she is
entitled for interest on the said amount in view of the law laid down by
a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and
others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468; J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana :
2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that since the recovered amount has already been refunded to
the petitioner, therefore, the present petition may be disposed of as
having become infructuous.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Since, either before or after the retirement of the petitioner,
no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against her,
therefore, her retiral benefits were required to be released within a
reasonable time after her retirement and since the amount of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043120
2024:PHHC:043120
Rs.6,75,648/- was wrongly recovered from the petitioner which has
been refunded to her after a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the same.
8. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an
inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable,
employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of said
judgment is as under:-
"Since a government employee on his retirement becomes
immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms
of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the
State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other
benefits to the retiree in proper time. As to what is proper
time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case but normally it would not exceed two months from the
date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by
the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If
the State commits any default in the performance of its
duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the
immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact
that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion,
the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for
the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the
date of his retirement."
9. Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S.
Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, had held
that an employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which
has been retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under: -
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact
that one person's money has been used by somebody else.
It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is
compounded by any negligence on the part of the person
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043120
2024:PHHC:043120
with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate
because then it can also include the component of damages
(in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there
is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied
that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in
the custody of the State and was being used by it."
10. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent-Corporation to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the
petitioner on the recovered amount, from the date of recovery till
11.07.2023, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
01.04.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
