Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulshan Kumar Dhamija vs Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
CWP-21563-2016 -1-
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-21563-2016
Date of Decision: 02.08.2024
Gulshan Kumar Dhamija
..... Petitioner
Versus
Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Legal Aid Counsel,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed
payment of retiral benefits like leave encashment, pension, gratuity and
commutation of pension etc. from the date of retirement till the date of
disbursement.
2. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that it is a case where the petitioner was appointed on the post of
Assistant Lineman on 31.01.1973 in the respondent-Nigam and thereafter,
he was promoted to the post of Lineman on 11.02.1981 and thereafter, again
he was promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman on 18.06.2004 and was
further promoted to the post of Foreman. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
31.03.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. She further submitted
that after the retirement, the respondents illegally withheld all the retiral
benefits of the petitioner and did not pay anything to him after his
retirement. It was only in the year 2009-2010 after a lapse of 2-3 years that
the retiral benefits have been paid. She has referred to the chart which has
been so given in Para No.1 of the reply filed by the respondents wherein the
dates of the delayed payments have been given. She further submitted that as
per the reply which has been filed by the respondents, the reason for the
delay was that after the retirement of the petitioner, he was served a charge-
sheet dated 15.05.2008 vide Annexure R-2, regarding which, a punishment
order dated 19.03.2009 has also been passed vide Annexure R-3, in which, it
was ordered that 4% amount be deducted from the pension of the petitioner
for a period of one year for the purpose of recovery. She also submitted that
the allegations in the charge-sheet were that while the petitioner was in
service, a person had suffered accidental injuries and the son of the aforesaid
injured person had claimed an amount of Rs.2 lacs as compensation and
Rs.62,000/- as expenditure incurred on the treatment and now by way of the
aforesaid punishment order, it has been so stated that 4% amount be
deducted from the pension of the petitioner. She further submitted that there
is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid amount so claimed have
been given by the respondents-Nigam to the injured person or not but the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner have been curtailed because of the
aforesaid.
3. Learned Legal Aid Counsel further submitted that after the
retirement of the petitioner, the employer and employee relationship ceases
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
to operate and the respondents have not been able to show anything on the
record as to how the charge-sheet could have been issued to the petitioner
after his retirement. She also submitted that a reference has been made to
Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in the reply but there is nothing
on record to show as to how the aforesaid Punjab Civil Services Rules as
applicable to the State of Haryana were also made applicable to the
respondents-UHBVNL. She referred to the judgment passed by a Divsion
Bench of this Court in CWP-7949-2005 titled as "Ashok Kumar Dhamija
Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others" decided
on 21.09.2006 and also the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP No.12171 of 2010 titled as "Ajit Singh Vs. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited" decided on 19.01.2012 in this regard wherein
it was held that the aforesaid Haryana Civil Services Rules were not
applicable to the UHBVNL and submitted that therefore, the action of the
respondents in delaying the retiral benefits was without the authority of law.
She also submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner, no order was
passed by the respondents for withholding the gratuity, leave encashment,
pension and commutation of pension etc. and in the absence of any order to
that effect by exercising any power, retiral benefits could not be withheld.
She also submitted that permission may be granted to the petitioner to
challenge punishment order by separate proceedings.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the
respondents-UHBVNL, while referring to the reply by the respondents
submitted that the reason for delay in disbursal of the retiral benefits was
only due to the fact that a charge-sheet was pending against the petitioner in
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
which ultimately a punishment order has been passed and therefore, it
cannot be said that the delay is unjustified delay.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. It is a case where the prayer of the petitioner is only to the
extent that the interest be paid to the petitioner on delayed payment of retiral
benefits. However, there is no challenge to the punishment order which has
been passed against the petitioner regarding which liberty has been sought
by learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the same by separate
proceedings. Therefore, dealing with the only prayer which is for grant of
interest, it would be necessary to see as to what was the reason for delay. As
per the learned counsels for the parties and the reply, a charge-sheet has
been issued to the petitioner after his retirement in which a punishment order
has also been passed. A perusal of the charge-sheet would also show that the
allegations were that one person had suffered accidental injuries at the time
when the petitioner was posted there and was in service and the son of the
injured person had claimed an amount of Rs.2 lacs as compensation and
Rs.62,000/- as expenditure incurred on treatment, but there is nothing on
record to show that the aforesaid amount was ever paid to the injured person
or not. Even otherwise also assumingly there was any power with the
respondents to have withheld the retiral benefits then the same could have
been done only to the aforesaid extent of money, but in the present case an
amount of Rs.7-8 lacs was withheld after the retirement of the petitioner. A
Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dhamija's case (supra) and a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) observed that a
charge-sheet cannot be issued to an employee after his retirement under the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
UHBVN. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of Ashok Kumar
Dhamija's case (supra) is reproduced as under:-
"2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the considered view that the respondents could not
have withheld any amount of gratuity payable to the
petitioner on account of allegations which have
emanated after the date of his retirement. Such a course
is not available to the respondents. In some what similar
circumstances, this Court has earlier also in the case of
Hans Raj Sharma vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited and others, Civil Writ Petition No.152 of 2004,
decided on October 29, 2004) has allowed the writ
petition by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in P.R. Naik vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 554.
It has been laid down in the aforementioned judgment
that issuance of charge-sheet for initiation of
departmental enquiry is a sine qua non."
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra)
held as under:-
"3. If the charge-sheet had been established and if there
was any charge-sheet which could be said to be lawfully
instituted subsequent to the retirement, then it is possible
to sustain the defence. The charge-sheets issued on
23.08.2006 and 27.10.2006 had been dropped even before
his retirement. The charge-sheet issued in 2009 was per se
impermissible for, there is no provision anywhere under
the relevant rules under which a charge-sheet could have
been issued subsequent to his retirement. A show cause
notice of the year 2007 cannot also be said to cause any
impediment for payment of retiral dues, so long as there
was no charge-sheet framed subsequent to the show cause
notice before his retirement. None of the actions which the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
respondents had against the petitioner really afforded a
ground for denying to the petitioner the retiral dues.
4. There have been ample authorities from this Court as
well as from the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
retirement dues are no bounty for an employer to give to
his employee. On the other hand, it is an earned wage
during the service but staggered for disbursal by terms of
employment. The employer ought to know that a person
that makes way for a whole new crop to come on his
superannuation, ought to go with his head held high and
not feel burdened to frustration by how the employer treats
him. The delay caused to more than two years, in my view,
was not justified at all and in terms of the judgments which
this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have
held, the retiral dues which had been paid subsequently in
September to November 2009 shall also been mulcted with
interest at 18% per annum on the amount ascertained with
effect from 2 months from the date of superannuation till
date of payment. This ought to sound a ring of caution to
the respondents that they treat their employees, who go out
of retirement, with respect that they deserve. Any
contumacious default or excuses by pendency of charge-
sheets which are no longer continued at the time of
retirement or which are initiated subsequent to retirement
against the rules must be visited with serious
consequences for the establishment. I will reject the
contention that there was no justification for delayed
payment for the retiral dues".
8. There is nothing on record to show as to how the Haryana Civil
Services Rules were applicable to the respondent-Nigam and therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that no such charge-sheet could have been
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099076
issued to the petitioner after his retirement. Apart from the above, no order
was passed after retirement of the petitioner for withholding or denying the
pensionary benefits, in case, the respondents wanted to withhold the
benefits, then at least it has to be done by way of application of mind by
passing an order but the same has not been done in the present case. It is a
settled law that grant of pension and pensionary benefits is not a charity of
the State or its instrumentalities but it is a Right which flows from the
Statutory Rules and also as a Right of Property under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. The respondents-Nigam are directed to calculate the
interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits @6% per annum
(simple) and pay to the petitioner within a period of 4 months from today.
10. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek any other remedy
available to him in accordance with law to challenge the punishment order.
02.08.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
