Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sawinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047937
CWP No.21427 of 2021 (O&M)
1
2024:PHHC:047937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21427 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
Sawinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Abhishek Khullar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate
with Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 10.09.2021
(Annexure P-10) vide which the respondents have denied interest on the
delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. Further a writ of
mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to release 12%
interest on account of delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner stood retired as Assistant Accounts
Officer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017, however,
after his retirement, he was served with a show cause notice dated
18.08.2017 (Annexure P-1), which was received by the petitioner on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047937
2024:PHHC:047937
03.10.2017 but later on, the said show cause notice was disposed of by
the respondents after issuing a warning to the petitioner vide order dated
12.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation dated
18.04.2021 (Annexure P-7) seeking interest on the delayed payment of
retiral dues, however, the same was rejected by the respondents -
authorities vide impugned order dated 10.09.2021 (Annexure P-10) and
thus, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for release of remaining
retiral benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though
some of the pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner but all
the pensionary benefits were liable to be released immediately upon the
retirement of the petitioner and as the release of the pensionary benefits
has been delayed, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest as no
departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner. He
further submits that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner
much after his retirement, however, the said show cause notice was
disposed of by giving a warning to the petitioner. He further submits
that the action of the respondents in withholding the pensionary benefits
of the petitioner is totally illegal and arbitrary.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on
the ground that there is no intentional delay in releasing the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner and the same has occurred only on account of
the fact that the petitioner was issued show cause notice, which was
culminated into passing of order of warning.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047937
2024:PHHC:047937
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. Since there was nothing adverse against the petitioner, at
the time of his retirement and the show cause notice has already been
disposed of by issuing a warning to the petitioner, which is of no
consequence, and, therefore, the retiral dues were liable to be released
within a reasonable time. Having not released the retiral dues to the
petitioner in time, hence, the petitioner is held entitled for interest @ 6%
per annum.
7. The Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State
of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 has held that employee is
entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable
time after the retirement in case there is no impediment. The reasonable
time fixed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case
(supra) is two months after the retirement. In case of the failure of the
authority to release the pensionary benefits, employee has been held
entitled for interest so as to compensate the employee for the delay. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047937
2024:PHHC:047937
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."
8. Also, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema
Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 has held that where
an amount belonging to an employee has been retained and used by the
department, employee will be entitled for interest. 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 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."
9. Keeping in view the above facts and settled principles of
law, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 10.09.2021
(Annexure P-10) is set-aside and petitioner is held entitled for interest
@ 6% per annum from 01.08.2017 (after 03 months from date of
retirement) till the date the actual payment(s), which shall be paid by
respondent No.2, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
