Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081514
CWP-7383-2019 1
210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7383-2019
Date of Decision: 02-07-2024
AMARJIT SINGH ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 03.05.2018
(Annexure P-11) by which the post retiral benefits as well as the extension given in the
service were withheld and the extension given in service was withdrawn on the ground
that at the time when the petitioner retired from service, there was a chargesheet dated
01.08.2012 which was pending against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was
working as a Lecturer attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2018, pursuant to
which the petitioner intended to get extension in the service keeping in view the
instructions issued by the Government of Punjab. Thereby the respondents granted the
petitioner extension in service for a period of one year i.e upto 31.03.2019.
During the extension in service, the respondent passed impugned order
dated 03.05.2018 that as the petitioner was facing a chargesheet while he was in service
prior to attaining the age of superannuation, accordingly keeping in view the instructions
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081514
issued by the Government of Punjab, no extension could have been granted to such
employees and therefore, the order granting extension in service was withdrawn.
Learned counsel submits that even after withdrawing the extension, the
petitioner was not paid his pensionary benefits as the same were only released to him
after the passing of order Annexure R-2 dated 16.08.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though it has been
prayed in the petition that the petitioner be allowed to continue in service but as the said
period of extension has already expired, the petitioner is only claiming that the petitioner
be released the salary from 01.04.2018 till 09.05.2018 i.e. till the date the petitioner has
discharged the duties during the extension in service as well as the interest on the delayed
release of the pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the
petitioner was given extension inadvertently despite the fact that the chargesheet dated
01.08.2012 was pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement on 31.03.2018.
Learned State counsel submits that as per the instructions of the Government of Punjab,
employee facing disciplinary proceedings could not have been granted extension and as
and when, the inadvertent mistake came to the notice of the State, impugned order dated
03.05.2018 was passed withdrawing the grant of extension in service.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that after withdrawing
the order granting extension in service, the claim of the petitioner for the release of the
pensionary benefits was considered but as there were departmental proceedings pending
against him, which only concluded on 16.08.2019, the benefit could not be released to
him immediately and after the passing of the order dated 16.08.2019, copy of which has
been appended as Annexure R-2 by which chargesheet dated 01.08.2012 was dropped,
the pensionary benefits have already been released hence, no grievance can be raised by
the petitioner.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081514
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
records of the present case with their able assistance.
The extension in service is to be given keeping in view the decision of the
Government of Punjab. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner showing that
an employee who was facing chargesheet, could have been given extension in service. It
is also a conceded fact that there was a chargesheet dated 01.08.2012 issued to the
petitioner while he was in service, which only came to the end with order dated
16.08.2019. Hence, withdrawing of the grant of extension in service by the respondents
cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the instructions given by the
Government of Punjab qua the grant of extension in service to the employees beyond the
age of superannuation.
With regard to the claim of the petitioner for the grant of salary from
01.04.2018 till 09.05.2018, the same is justified. Once the petitioner was granted
extension in service and the petitioner had discharged the duties from 01.04.2018 till
09.05.2018, the petitioner is entitled to get the salary for the post in question, as the same
cannot be withheld. Hence, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the
petitioner from 01.04.2018 till 09.05.2018.
Keeping in view the fact that a chargesheet was pending against the
petitioner, the respondents were within the jurisdiction to withhold certain pensionary
benefits but, as per respondents themself, the chargesheet dated 01.08.2012 which was
pending against the petitioner was filed vide order dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure R-2). As
the respondents failed to substantiate the allegations mentioned in the chargesheet, the
same cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner in any manner. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled for the grant of interest on the detailed release of the pensionary benefits starting
from 01.06.2018 onwards till actual payment was released to the petitioner. The interest
will be given @ 6% per annum. The interest on the delayed release of pensionary
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081514
benefits is being granted to the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in of J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355,
wherein it has been 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 laying 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."
Keeping in view the abovesaid, the respondents will release the salary of
the petitioner from 01.04.2018 till 09.05.2018 along with interest and will also grant
interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits starting 01.06.2018 till the actual
payment is released @ 6% per annum.
Let the same be complied within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of
certified copy of this order.
Present petition is allowed in above terms.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
02.07.2024
Sapna Goyal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
4 of 4
