Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 August, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098606
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-18219-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02-08-2024
DARSHAN SINGH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance raised by the petitioner is
that the petitioner was not given his retiral dues as required under law and
petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.27845 of 2022,
which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure
P-1) directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and
pass an appropriate speaking order and now, though, the retiral benefits of
the petitioner have been given and arrears have also been released but no
interest has been paid on the arrears which is causing prejudice to the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the
judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098606
CWP-18219-2024 (O&M) -2-
Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, it had been 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 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
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of
the petitioner has already been raised in the representation dated 30.05.2024,
copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-3 and the petitioner would
be satisfied at this stage, if the said representation is decided by passing an
appropriate speaking order.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG Punjab appears and accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that, the representation dated
30.05.2024 appended as Annexure P-3 will be decided by the concerned
authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order by passing an appropriate speaking order. Learned State
counsel further submits that in case, it is found feasible to accept the claim
of the petitioner, the same will be accepted, otherwise due reasons will be
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098606
CWP-18219-2024 (O&M) -3-
mentioned for not accepting the claim of the petitioner in the speaking order
to be passed which will be conveyed to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the statement of the learned State counsel, present petition may kindly be
disposed of as having been not pressed any further.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending application, if any, also stand disposed off.
02-08-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
