Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Pati vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043624
CWP-1213-2020 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:043624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228 CWP-1213-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision :01.04.2024
Phool Pati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, petitioner is claiming interest on the
delayed release of the service benefits as well as pensionary benefits in
respect of the services rendered by her late husband.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, the
husband of the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2015 but his
pensionary benefits were delayed hence, keeping in view the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and
others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest
on the said delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
3. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that on the
date when husband of the petitioner retired from service, the disciplinary
proceedings were pending against him and during the pendency of the said
disciplinary proceedings, husband of the petitioner died and after the death
of the husband of the petitioner, all the pensionary benefits have been
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043624
CWP-1213-2020 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:043624
released to the petitioner hence, no interest can be claimed by the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. Once, on the date when the husband of the petitioner retired
from service, disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, which
disciplinary proceedings continued till the husband of the petitioner died
and, thereafter, the petitioner was granted service benefits in respect of the
service rendered by her husband, it cannot be said that benefits were
withheld by the respondents without there being any jurisdiction and the
respondents are liable to grant the benefit of interest to the petitioner on the
said delayed release of the benefits. Interest can only be granted in case, the
benefits liable to be released by the respondents have been withheld by the
respondents without any valid justification. In the present case, once, it is a
conceded position that husband of the petitioner was facing departmental
enquiry and has died before the culmination of the said departmental
proceedings and, thereafter, all the benefits were released to the petitioner,
the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of interest on the said benefits.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed
hereinbefore, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the
present petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any is disposed of.
April 01, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
