Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053109
CWP-8835-2021 -1- 2024:PHHC:053153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CWP-6101-2021
Date of Decision : 20.04.2024
RANJIT SINGH ... PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.R.S.Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondents to pay interest @18%
on delayed payment of retiral dues.
2. The petitioner joined respondent as Junior Basic Teacher on
11.01.1978. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2015, however, he
was granted 02 year extension, thus, he finally retired on 30.11.2017. He was
entitled to retiral dues. The respondent delayed disbursing of his retiral dues.
The respondent has paid interest on delayed payment on GPF, however, no
interest has been paid on delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity as
well as leave encashment. The detail of payment of gratuity and leave
encashment is as below:
Sr. No. Pensionary Date of payment Total amount (in
benefits Rs.)
1 DCRG (Death- 18.03.2019 9,11,312/-
cum-Retirement
Gratuity)
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053109
CWP-8835-2021 -2- 2024:PHHC:053153
2 Leave 31.03.2018 3,78,580/-
Encashment
3. As per reply and statement of State counsel, the State gets three
months time to pay retiral dues. The State is not liable to pay interest if retiral
dues are cleared within three months from the date of retirement.
4. On being confronted with the date of retirement and date of
payment of retiral dues, Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab concedes that there is
delay in disbursing retiral dues beyond the prescribed period of three months.
5. The Apex Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3) SCC 44
has clearly held that an employee can claim interest in terms of Part III of
Constitution of India in case of delay in disbursal of retiral benefits. The relevant
extracts of the said judgment read as:
"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is
not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant
retired from service on 30-6-1998. It is also undisputed that
at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had
completed more than three decades in government service.
Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in
accordance with law. True it is that certain charge-
sheets/show-cause notices were issued against him and the
appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary
proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is,
however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had
been taken at the instance of Mr Quraishi against whom
serious allegations of malpractices and misconduct had been
levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr
Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr
Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief
Minister. Immediately thereafter chargesheets were issued to
the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053109
CWP-8835-2021 -3- 2024:PHHC:053153
fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all
retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also
cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the
appellant after four years.
14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view
that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well
founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits.
If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant
could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there
are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms
prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of
interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules,
administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can
claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are
not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded
and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the
matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not
right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing
notice to the respondents."
6. A Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa, Supg. Engineer
(Retd.) v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 705 has adverted with an
identical issue and held that an employee normally would be paid retiral benefits
within two months and in case of payment beyond two months, he shall be
entitled to interest. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:
"9. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053109
CWP-8835-2021 -4- 2024:PHHC:053153
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 case [1985 (2) L.L.N. 18]
(vide 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. Again, as to what should
be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12
per cent unless the circumstances of a particular case
warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to
even 18 per cent."
7. In the wake of aforesaid judgments, it is quite evident that an
employee is entitled to interest if payment of retiral dues is made beyond two
months from the date of retirement. The respondent has paid interest @ 7.8% on
delayed payment of GPF. As per respondent, retiral dues may be paid in 03
months.
8. In view of above facts and findings, it is hereby held that the
petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.8% per annum on delayed payment of
gratuity and leave encashment. The period of interest would start from the
expiry of 03 months from the retirement.
9. Disposed of in above terms.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
20.04.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
