Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar Tayal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183
CWP-13956-2020 2024:PHHC:050183 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(246) CWP-13956-2020
Date of Decision : April 15, 2024
Ramesh Kumar Tayal .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 16.06.2020 (Annexure P-23) as well as the order dated
24.07.2020 (Annexure P-24).
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as the orders impugned have already been implemented, the
petitioner is not interested in pressing the said claim.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
retired from service on 31.08.2018 and his pensionary benefits were
released after a delay hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest
on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the petitioner retired from service on
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183
31.08.2018 and prior to the date of retirement, a charge sheet dated
20.06.2014 which was pending against the petitioner, was decided on
20.08.2018 and a recovery of certain amount was imposed upon the
petitioner along with stoppage of two increments.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the
charge sheet dated 20.06.2014 had already been decided before the date of
retirement, there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary
benefits but as the respondents wanted to modify the order dated 20.08.2018
to that of recovery as well as cut in pension to the tune of 10% retrial
benefits were not released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once
there was no impediment for the release of the pensionary benefits on the
date of retirement, the respondents are under an obligation to release the
same along with interest.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that the petitioner was facing a charge sheet and though the said charge
sheet was finally decided on 20.08.2018 i.e. before the date of retirement of
the petitioner but as the said order was to be modified, the pensionary
benefits were stopped but before the modification of the said order, by an
order dated 04.02.2021, the pensionary benefits were released to the
petitioner in the year 2020 only. Hence, the petitioner cannot raise claim for
the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the
respondents are under an obligation to release the pensionary benefits
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183
within a period of two months of the retirement in case there is no
impediment and in case the pensionary benefits are not released, the
employee is to be compensated by way of interest. The relevant paragraph
of the 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 retirer 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 front 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. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 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 respondents, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the
interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case
(supra) 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050183
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. Keeping in view the facts of the present case as there was no
impediment on the date when the petitioner retired on 31.08.2018, the
respondents should have released all the pensionary benefits without any
delay within period prescribed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa's case (supra). As there is a delay of more than one year in
release of the pensionary benefits, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of
interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits.
11. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed qua the grant of
interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits and the petitioner
is held entitled for the interest @ 6% per annum from the date the
pensionary benefits became due till the actual release of the same. Let the
respondents calculate the interest for which the petitioner becomes entitled
for and release the same within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of
copy of this order.
April 15, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
