Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 20 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053160
CWP-8711-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:053160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-8711-2024
Date of decision: 20.04.2024
AJAY SINGH ....PETITIONER
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents-Union of India.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to pay interest @ 12%
per annum on arrears of pay and allowances.
2. The petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated
17.02.2014 passed by Competent Authority. He preferred CWP-9025-2018
before this Court against the order of termination which came to be allowed vide
order dated 04.09.2019 (Annexure P-2).
3. In compliance of order dated 04.09.2019 passed by this Court,
Deputy Inspector General (Law), Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi issued
signal dated 20.03.2020 observing that petitioner is entitled to re-instatement
and realization of pay and allowances for the period for which he was out of
service.
4. The respondent passed order dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-3)
whereby petitioner was re-instated. He re-joined service w.e.f. 29.05.2020. The
respondent paid him backwages along with allowances in April' 2024.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053160
CWP-8711-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:053160
5. Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate submits that petitioner may not be
entitled to interest on backwages from the date of his termination, however, he is
entitled to interest from the date of re-joining service. He re-joined service on
29.05.2020, thus, respondent was bound to clear backwages and allowances
especially when order of re-instatement was passed on 30.04.2020.
6. Notice of motion.
7. Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India accepts
notice on behalf of respondents-Union of India and waives service.
8. On being confronted with afore-stated facts Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Senior
Panel Counsel expressed his inability to controvert the fact that petitioner was
re-instated vide order dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-3) and he was paid
backwages in April' 2024. The backwages relate to the period from February'
2014 to April' 2020.
9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
10. From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner was
dismissed from service in February' 2014 and he remained out of service till
28.05.2020. He was permitted to re-join on 30.04.2020 but he actually rejoined
on 29.05.2020. The respondent principally accepted to pay backwages in March'
2020. However, backwages were cleared in April' 2024. The petitioner may not
be entitled to interest from February' 2014, however, he is entitled to interest
from the date of re-joining.
11. 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 a
similar 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:
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053160
CWP-8711-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:053160
"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
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."
12. It is a settled proposition of law that interest is compensatory in
nature. A man who withholds money belonging to another person is liable to pay
interest for depriving its owner to use said money.
13. In the wake of aforesaid judgments and considering the fact that
there is a gap of almost 1 month between the date of order of re-instatement and
order of rejoining, the respondents are hereby directed to pay interest @ 6% per
annum on arrears of pay and allowances from the date of re-joining to the date
of payment.
14. Disposed of in above terms.
20.04.2024 [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
