Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagar Ram vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224
CWP-5165-2017 2024:PHHC:043224
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
WP-5165-2017
C
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
Jagar Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Dhruv Walia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. The prayer inthepresentCivilWritPetitionfiledunderArticles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest onthedelayedpayment
of gratuity and provident fund.
2. Learned counsel wouldsubmitthatthepetitionerhadpreviously
approached this Court by filing CWP-4123-2015 for extension in service,
which was dismissed, however with a direction that the pension and retiral
benefits would be released. There were certain documents required for the
same, last of which the petitioner supplied on 26.05.2016, Annexure
R-6.Thereafter, the leave encashment, which though sanctioned vide order
dated 31.05.2016, Annexure R-8/T and GPF on 25.10.2016, Annexure
R-10/T, but were released after a long and unexplained delay on03.12.2016
and07.01.2017respectively.Thus,heisentitledtointerestthereoninviewof
the judgment of theFullBenchofthisCourtinA.S.Randhawavs.Stateof
Punjab and others,1997(3) SCT 468.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224
CWP-5165-2017 2024:PHHC:043224
-2-
3. Contrarily, the learned State counsel submits that the delay
causedisonlyproceduralandonaccountofthefactthatthepetitionerhadnot
submitted the documents in time.
4. Heard learned counsel on either side.
5. Apparently, the prayer made in the writ petition filed was
declined, albeit with liberty to avail civil remedy, conjoined with an
observation of the Court that pension and pensionary benefits would be
released to the petitioner without delay and preferably within a fortnight.
6. As is explicit from the facts narrated hereinabove that are
substantiatedwithdocumentsappendedbytherespondentsthemselvesasper
which, there has been a delay in release of the benefits, despite sanction
havingbeengrantedtherefor,withoutanysatisfactoryexplanationoffered,but
for a vague reason owing to procedure.
7. In A.S. Randhawa (supra), it was heldthatanemployeewould
be entitled to be compensatedbygrantinginterestbytheStateonaccountof
delayed disbursal of retiral benefits.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of
UP,2001(9)SCC687,heldthatincasethereisnojustificationorreasonfor
delayed payment of retiral benefits, interest would be liable to be paid.
9. ThisCourtinJ.S.Cheemavs.StateofHaryana,2014(13)RCR
(Civil) 355, observed that, the interesthastobegiventoanemployeewhere
anamountbelongingtohim,wasretainedandutilisedbytherespondents,has
been released on a later date.
10. Inthecaseathand,thepetitioneristhereforeentitledtograntof
interest,whichisnotpenalinnaturebutcompensatory,havingbeendeprived
of an amount, which the respondents unjustly enriched themselves with.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043224
CWP-5165-2017 2024:PHHC:043224
-3-
11. Giventhefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,consideredinlight
of the afore-referred judicial pronouncements, the present writ petition is
disposed of, with a direction totherespondentstopaytheinterestattherate
of 6% per annum ontheamountofretiralbenefits,fromthedateofsanction
till actual disbursement, within a period of two months.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 1.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
