Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjoob vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
248
CWP-25626-2022
Date of decision : 06.08.2024
Harjoob .....Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Chatrath, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to (i) pay interest as per the
provisions of the Punjab General Provident Fund Rules on delayed
deposit of amount of provident fund with the concerned authority from
the date the said amount was deducted till the date of retirement; (ii)
release the pension, remaining gratuity, leave encashment, provident
fund (alongwith interest as aforesaid) and all other benefits and (iii) also
pay interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits from the
date of retirement till the date of its actual payment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner had joined the respondents as Safai
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100727
Sewak on 01.09.1988 and was posted with respondent No.4. He applied
for premature retirement vide application dated 28.03.2022 which was
accepted by the respondents and the petitioner has retired from the post
of Safai Sewak on 31.07.2022. After retirement the petitioner came to
know that the provident fund @ 10% of pay deducted from the salary of
the petitioner every month was not deposited by respondent No.4 with
the concerned authority as per 'The Punjab General Provident Fund
Rules' due to which the petitioner has suffered loss of interest which he
would have earned, if respondent No.4 regularly deposited the provident
fund amount with the concerned authority. At the time of retirement, the
petitioner has been paid only P.F. amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. Thereafter
on 08.09.2022, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the
petitioner and the remaining retiral dues have not been released. The
petitioner has also served legal notice dated 04.10.2022 to the
respondents for releasing his retiral dues, however, no action was taken
on the same. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although
during the pendency of the present petition all the retiral dues have been
released to the petitioner, however, the same have been released after a
considerable delay. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on
the same. The retiral dues have been released to the petitioner in the
following manner :-
Sr. No. Category Dues Amount paid Cheque No. / Date
1. P.F. 1,40,000/- 1,40,000/- 376842/28.07.2022
2. Leave Encashment 5,56,800/- 5,00,000/- 376947/08.09.2022
56,800/- 377446/16.05.2023
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100727
3. Gratuity 10,92,185/- 10,92,185/- 377446/16.05.2023
Total 17,88,985/- 17,88,985/-
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts
his claim for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues and
for other claim he seeks liberty to submit representation before
respondent No.4 which may be considered in a time bound manner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4
submits that during the pendency of the present petition, all the retiral
benefits of the petitioner have been released and nothing is remained to
be paid. Therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
He has also produced copy of order dated 02.08.2023 passed by
respondent No.4, whereby retiral benefits have been paid to the
petitioner, which is taken on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
6. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner,
no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him,
therefore, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were required to be
released within a reasonable time after his retirement. Since there is a
considerable delay in releasing the part payment of leave encashment
and gratuity 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,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100727
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
(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 respondent
No.4 to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the delayed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100727
payment of retiral dues, w.e.f. 01.11.2022 (i.e. after three months of his
retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 03 months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. For his other claims, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
make representation before respondent No.4, within a period of 04
weeks from today, which shall be considered and decided by respondent
No.4, within a period of 03 months thereafter by passing a speaking
order and after granting an opportunity of personal hearing.
06.08.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
