Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:014321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
241
CWP-2709-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 25.01.2024
Baljit Singh . . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Balwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. The grievance being raised by the petitioner in the present
petition is that though the petitioner has already retired from the service
on 31.03.2022, but, the petitioner has not been granted his leave encashment
immediately within the period of 02 months of retirement, which action on
the part of the respondents is causing prejudice to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, wherein, it has
been held that in case an employee has not been paid his/her retiral benefits
within a period of two months from the date of his/her retirement, where
there is no impediment in the release of the same, an employee will be
entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed payments hence, the
respondents are under obligation to grant the benefit of leave encashment
with interest on the delayed release of the same, so that the petitioner does
not suffer any prejudice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though it is a
conceded fact that leave encashment was not paid to the petitioner within a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
CWP-2709-2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:010355
period of two months of retirement without there being any impediment in
release of the same but the same could not be released keeping in view the
internal communication between the Administrative Department and the
Office of Accountant General. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that certain objections were being raised by the Office of Accountant
General, Haryana and it took time to rectify the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though
it was not a case of raising any objection but despite the fact that all the
formalities were to be completed by the Administrative Department, the
approval by the office of Accountant General, Haryana was not given so as to
release the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner hence, the claim of
the petitioner for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of leave
encashment may kindly be declined.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a conceded position that there was no impediment in the
release of the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. That being so,
keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this
Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468,
that an employee is entitled for the release of his/her pensionary benefits
within a period of two months of his/her retirement in case there is no
impediment, failing which, an employee will be entitled for the grant of
benefit of interest on the said delayed release of payments, the delay in
releasing the leave encashement is attributable to the respondents for which
the petitioner becomes entitle for the grant of interest so as to compensate
his prejudice. The relevant paragraph of said judgment is as under:-
"Since a government employee on his retirement becomes
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
CWP-2709-2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:010355
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 retirer 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
front 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."
7. With regard to the argument raised by the learned State counsel
that the leave encashment could not be released in the favour of the petitioner
as the same was not approved by the office of Accountant General, Haryana
despite the fact all the formalities were completed by the respondents-
department, it may be noticed that the Office of the Accountant General,
Haryana is the part of the respondents administration. Once, the matter
remained pending with the two departments of Government of Haryana
which has caused prejudice, the claim of the petitioner for grant of the
interest which is covered keeping in view the settled principle of law,
cannot be declined, hence, the arguments being raised to justify the delay in
release of the leave encashment in favour of the petitioner will not dis-entitle
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
CWP-2709-2023 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:010355
the petitioner for the grant of benefit of interest.
8. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in of J.S. Cheema Vs.
State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an amount
belonging to an employee, has been retained and used by the respondents,
upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the interest has to be
given. 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."
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed
hereinbefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the settled
principle of law noticed hereinabove for the grant of benefit of interest on the
delayed release of leave encashment admissible to him. Hence, the petitioner
is held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum on the payment,
which has been released to him after a delay of two months of his retirement
from the date the amount became due till the actual payments have been be
released to him.
10. Let the computation of interest be done by the respondents and
amount so calculated shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
CWP-2709-2023 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:010355
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. It may be noticed that in case the administrative department has
any claim with regard to the recovery of any interest from the office of
Accountant General, the same will be settled between the parties.
12. The present petition is allowed in above terms.
13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
25.01.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014321
5 of 5
