Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahender Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043390
CWP-24352-2021 -1-
2024:PHHC:043390
237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24352-2021
Date of decision: 01.04.2024
MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of commuted value of
pension and LTC to the petitioners and to grant interest thereon from the date of
retirement till the date of transfer of the said amounts.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the short issue
involved in the present case is with regard to the prayer for grant of interest on
the delayed payment of commuted value of pension and LTC to the petitioners.
He referred to para No.3 of the writ petition, wherein by way of a tabulated
form, the date of retirement of all the three petitioners is mentioned against the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043390
2024:PHHC:043390
amount for which they were entitled as commuted value of pension and LTC.
He further submitted that there had been a delay of more than one year in the
disbursement of the aforesaid amount to the petitioners and there is no
justification with regard to the same and has prayed for the interest on the
aforesaid. He referred to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in
A. S. Randhawa versus State of Punjab and others, 1997 (3) SCT 468 (F.B.)
to contend that a separate writ petition can lie for the purpose of prayer for grant
of interest only.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Gaur, learned counsel for
respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that there had been a delay of more than one
year in the disbursement of the aforesaid amount of commuted value of pension
and LTC to the petitioners, for which no justification has come even in the reply
filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it fit
and proper to allow the present writ petition and direct respondents No.2 and 3
to grant interest to all the three petitioners on delayed payment of commuted
value of pension and LTC. As per the learned counsel for the parties, since there
had been a delay of more than one year in the disbursement of the commuted
value of pension and LTC to the petitioners regarding which no justification has
come forth from respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioners shall be entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum (simple) on the aforesaid amount of commuted value
of pension and LTC from two months after the date of retirement till the date of
actual payment to the petitioners. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to
calculate the aforesaid interest and pay the same to the petitioners within a
period of three months from today.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043390
2024:PHHC:043390
5. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
01.04.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
