Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008779
2024:PHHC:008779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117
CWP-28578-2023
Date of Decision : 23.01.2024
Krishan Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed his power of
attorney in the Court which is taken on record.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing
the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner along with
interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had retired on 28.02.2023 as Sewerman on attaining the age
of superannuation from Municipal Council, Jalalabad (respondent
No.4), however, he has not received all the retrial benefits till date.
Therefore, directions may be issued to the respondents to release the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008779
2024:PHHC:008779
remaining amount of retiral benefits to the petitioner along with interest
on delayed payment of amount of retiral benefits.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 had sought time on
16.01.2024 for getting instructions from respondent No.4-Municipal
Council, Jalalabad. On instructions, he submits that out of total amount
of retiral benefits i.e. Rs.20,82,876/-, a sum or Rs.13,25,662/- have
already been paid to the petitioner on different dates and only a sum of
Rs.7,57,214/- remains to be paid to the petitioner and due to the
financial constraints of the Committee, the said amount has not been
paid so far. He further submits that if reasonable time is granted, the
remaining amount will be disbursed to the petitioner. However, he
conceded the fact that out of Rs.13,25,662/-, which has already been
paid to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has been paid after a
period of three months from the retirement of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
6. It is a well settled law that the retiral benefits of the
employee is his property and the same cannot be withheld without any
justifiable reasons.
7. It is an admitted fact that no proceedings were pending
against the petitioner before or after his retirement, therefore, he is
entitled for the release of his retiral benefits atleast within a period of 03
months from the date of his retirement i.e. upto 31.05.2023, however,
out of total amount of Rs.20,82,876/-, the amount of Rs.7,54,214/- is yet
to be paid to the petitioner and even out of Rs.13,25,662/-, which has
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008779
2024:PHHC:008779
already been paid to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has been
paid after 30.05.2023.
8. Undisputably, a writ in the nature of mandamus is also
legally maintainable seeking grant of interest on the delayed payment in
view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay L. Malhotra
Vs. State of U.P. : 20004(4) SCT 267 as well as Full Bench of this
Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab & others : 1997(3) SCT
468 wherein it has further been categorically observed that in case of
delay in payment of retiral benefits, interest has to be paid. However,
interest may vary from case to case depending upon the facts &
circumstances thereof. It has been further observed that a Government
employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension
and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules and simultaneously a
duty is cast upon the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and
other benefits to the retiree in proper and reasonable time. However, the
reasonable and proper time for release of the pension has also been held
to be three months from the date of retirement or the accrual of cause of
action. In State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan : AIR 1985 SC 356;
D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nitran Nigam
Ltd. : 2014(4) S.C.T. 128; A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab (supra);
J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others : 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 355;
and Manohar Lal Vs. State of Punjab & others : 2016(4) SCT 250, it
has been held that normally payment of retiral benefits should not be
delayed more than three months from the date of retirement and all the
benefits should be extended within the aforesaid stipulated period.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008779
2024:PHHC:008779
Further, where there is a considerable delay, pensioner deserves to be
compensated by way of grant of interest as per the service rules/
regulations as well as Government instructions issued from time to time
and various judgments, referred to above.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
respondent No.4-Municipal Council, Jalalabad is directed to release the
balance amount of Rs.7,57,214/- to the petitioner within a period of 02
months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @
6% per annum on the delayed payment from expiry of three months
from the date of retirement of petitioner to actual date of payment,
which shall be paid by respondent No.4 after calculating the same
within a period of 02 months from today.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
23.01.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008779
4 of 4
