Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar Passi vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn Ltd ... on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
228
CWP-26932-2018
Date of decision : 01.08.2024
Krishan Kumar Passi .....Petitioner
V/S
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure P-
6), whereby representation dated 14.07.2018 made by the petitioner has
been disposed of by withholding the recovery of Rs.2,52,485.58/-.
Further seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to
release the full amount of retiral benefits of the petitioner along with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date the same have become due till
the actual date of payment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Corporation as
Inspector on 01.01.1975 and with the passage of time, he rose to the
post of District Manager and retired as such on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2007 from PUNSUP, Kapurthala. As per the
service conditions of the petitioner, he was not entitled to any pension
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
and was only to get the retiral dues in the form of gratuity and leave
encashment. However, he was shocked to see his retirement order dated
24.05.2007, wherein it has been stated that his retiral dues are withheld
on account of pendency of departmental enquiry/court cases etc. against
him. He made various representations to the respondents for releasing
his retiral benefits but no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, the
respondent-Corporation has filed two recovery suits bearing
No.CS/277/2009 and CS/1436/2013 against Inspector Des Raj and
Malkiat Singh, respectively, which were continued for a long time and
in the year 2016, the defendants-Des Raj and Malkiat Singh filed
applications before the concerned Court requesting that as the Deputy
District Manager (present petitioner) is also responsible for the said loss
so caused, therefore, he may also be arrayed as a defendant in the civil
suits. In its reply to said applications, the respondent-Corporation totally
refuted the contentions made therein and have taken a stand that it was
defendants-Des Raj and Malkiat Singh, who were wholly responsible
for the loss caused to the Corporation and the petitioner was not
required to be arrayed as a party in the said civil suits. However, learned
Trial Court, without considering the contentions made by the
respondent-Corporation, allowed the applications vide order dated
03.02.2016 and 06.02.2016 and arrayed the petitioner as defendant No.3
in the civil suits. When the petitioner was summoned by the Civil Court,
he inspected the Court files and came to know about the stand taken by
the respondent-Corporation which clearly shows that the respondent-
Corporation does not want to proceed against the petitioner in any
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
manner viz. Departmental proceedings or through filing Court case.
After collecting all the relevant documents, the petitioner submitted a
detailed representation dated 14.07.2017 to the respondent-Corporation
for releasing his retiral benefits but no action was taken on the same.
Thereafter, for redressal of his grievances, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing CWP No.26174 of 2017 which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 16.11.2017 by directing the respondents to look
into the grievance unfolded by the petitioner in his representation dated
14.07.2017 and to take a conscious decision, by passing a speaking
order considering all the facts narrated in the aforesaid representation,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of the order and in case, competent authorities arrives at the
conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the relief(s) claimed, same be
released to him within a period of next 45 days. Pursuant to the order
dated 16.11.2017 passed by this Court, the respondent-Corporation has
passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, thereby releasing part
payment of retiral dues to the petitioner by withholding the so called
recovery of Rs.2,52,485.58/- till the decision of Court cases. Hence, this
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired on 31.05.2007 and the Corporation has
unnecessarily withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner as in its reply
filed before the trial Court the Corporation stated that it was defendants-
Des Raj and Malkiat Singh only, who were wholly responsible for the
loss caused to the Corporation and the petitioner was not required to be
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
arrayed as a party in the civil suits. Although, all the retiral dues have
been released to the petitioner i.e. Rs.3,48,944/- on 27.06.2018 and
Rs.2,51,430/- on 18.04.2024, however, the same have been released
after a lapse of more than 17 years. Since there is a considerable delay
in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for interest on the same.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-
Corporation, while referring to the contents of the reply filed on behalf
of Corporation, submits that the delay occurred in releasing the retiral
dues of the petitioner is entirely procedural and not intentional as at the
time of retirement of the petitioner, various charge-sheets were pending
against him and thereafter, recovery suits were also filed by the
Corporation in which the petitioner was also made a party. However, he
conceded the fact that all the charge-sheets were finalized lateron and no
punishment was awarded to the petitioner and the recovery suits filed by
the respondents-Corporation were also dismissed by the learned Trial
Court vide judgments and decrees dated 21.02.2018 and 22.02.2018.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2007. All the charge-sheets
pending against him were finalized lateron between the years 2009 to
2017 and recovery suits filed by the respondents-Corporation were also
dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decrees dated
21.02.2018 and 22.02.2018. Since there is a considerable delay in
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
releasing the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, therefore, the
petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the same.
7. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an
inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable,
employee will be entitled for interest. 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 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. Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S.
Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, had held
that an employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which
has been retained by the respondents without any valid justification. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098357
(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. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the
delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment, w.e.f. 01.09.2007
(i.e. after three months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
01.08.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
