Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal Bhatti vs Punjab Water Supply And Sewerage Board on 11 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
228
CWP-289-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision : 11.03.2024
Sham Lal Bhatti (since deceased) through his LR ....Petitioner
V/S
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-18555-CWP-2023
Prayer in the instant application filed under Order XXII
Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC is for bringing on record the legal
representative of the petitioner, who has unfortunately died on
08.03.2022.
Notice in the application.
Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent accepts
notice and has no objection to the prayer made in the application.
For the averments made in the application, which are
supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the legal
representative of the petitioner as mentioned in para 3 of the application
is allowed to bring on record.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
CWP-289-2019
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 respondent to grant interest @ 18% per annum
on the delayed retiral dues.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the
respondent-Board as Junior Engineer on 16.04.1981. He was further
promoted as Assistant Engineer and was subsequently given the current
duty charge of Sub Divisional Engineer on 17.10.2008 and retired as
such on 31.01.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation. While the
petitioner was in service, he along with other officers, was issued
charge-sheet dated 28.10.2015. Subsequently, one of the delinquent
officer namely Surinder Kumar Ranga, SDE, filed CWP No.11121 of
2016 before this Court and sought directions to finalize the departmental
proceedings by considering his reply to the charge-sheet and take a
decision, whether to drop the charge-sheet or to proceed further. The
said petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.05.2016 directing the
competent authority to take a final decision, within three weeks. In
pursuance thereto the respondent vide order dated 31.08.2016,
exonerated Sh. Surinder Kumar Ranga and Sh. Tirath Ram Kajal,
whereas in the case of the petitioner, it was ordered that he be warned
and an amount of Rs.1,37,414/- will be deposited by him which will
remain withheld for three years. When the retiral dues of the petitioner
were not released, he made representation dated 21.06.2017 to the
respondent-Board but to no avail. Thereafter, he approached this Court
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
by filing CWP No.15590 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court
vide order dated 19.07.2017, with a direction to the respondents to look
into the grievance of the petitioner made in his representation dated
21.06.2017 and to decide the same, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In pursuant to the order
dated 19.07.2017, passed by this Court, the respondent-board has
released the retiral dues of the petitioner. Since the retiral dues of the
petitioner were released after a considerable delay, therefore, he
submitted a representation dated 23.09.2017 to the respondent-Board
claiming interest @ 18% per annum, however, no decision has been
taken thereon. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.24991 of 2017,
before this Court for claiming interest on the delayed retiral dues which
was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2017, with a direction to the
respondent to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner in his
representation dated 23.09.2017, and to decide the same within a period
of two months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Since no decision was taken within the time frame stipulated by this
Court, the petitioner served a contempt notice dated 15.03.2018,
informing the respondent-Board of the directions given by this Court.
The respondent-Board vide reply dated 25.05.2018 stated that there is
no delay in releasing the dues. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
retiral benefits of the petitioner were released after a considerable delay,
therefore, he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of retiral
dues in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and
J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355. The
details of payment of retiral dues is as under :-
Sr. Head Amount Received Delay
No. (in Rs.) on
1. CPF (own share) 13,93,836/- 10.10.2016 9 months 10 days
2. CPF(Board share) 15,43,220/- 30.06.2017 17 months
3. Gratuity 10,00,000/- 22.09.2017 20 months
4. Leave 6,43,106/- 22.09.2017 20 months
Encashment
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the whole amount of retiral dues has been paid to the
petitioner and nothing remains to be paid. However, he conceded the
fact that since at the time of retirement, two charge-sheets were pending
against the petitioner, therefore, some time was consumed for getting no
due certificate from the offices where the petitioner had served,
therefore, some delay has occurred in releasing the retiral dues to the
petitioner attributable to the aforesaid reasons, but the same is not
intentional.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
6. In para 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the
respondent, it has been stated as under :-
"2. That the petitioner has suppressed the true facts. He
had been served with two different charge sheets regarding
the disciplinary proceedings prior to his retirement from
service. The first charge sheet was decided by the
competent authority vide the order dated 15.11.2016
(Annexure P-2 on the record) and a finding of lapse on the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
part of the petitioner was given in the said order. However,
the authority took a lenient view qua him and issued him a
warning only for his lapse. It was also directed that an
amount of Rs.1,37,414/- be withheld from his outstanding
dues of leave encashment for a period of three years and
interest shall be paid upon the amount so withheld. It was
also held by the competent authority that in case the
agency goes him for legal proceedings against the Board,
the withheld amount shall be forfeited. The second charge
sheet was decided on 06.09.2016 and penalty of Rs.5000/-
was imposed upon the petitioner for dereliction of duty.
Further, the role of the petitioner came under the scanner
for works executed by him during an earlier tenure in the
Sub-Division of the Board at Pathankot. Therefore, it is
submitted that it is case where multiple charge-sheets had
been issued and the role of the petitioner was under the
scanner for the works entrusted to him while he was in
service. In the peculiar circumstances, some time was
consumed in obtaining the no dues clearance from the
offices where the petitioner had served. It is humbly
submitted that the delay in releasing the payments is
attributable to the aforesaid reasons and is not an
inordinate delay in the circumstances of the case. On the
contrary, the petitioner was the beneficiary of a lenient
view taken by the employer during the disciplinary
proceedings. "
7. The only ground taken by the respondent in the written
statement is that due to the fact that two charge-sheets were pending
against the petitioner, therefore, some delay has occurred in releasing
the retiral benefits of the petitioner. But as the above charge-sheets
issued against the petitioner were concluded on 06.09.2016 and
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
15.11.2016, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of
interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 16.11.2016.
8. 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,
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."
9. 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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
2024:PHHC:034491
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."
10. In view of the above factual position and settled principle
of law, the present petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to
pay interest @ 6% per annum to the legal representative of the
petitioner, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 17.11.2016 till
the actual date of payment, within a period of 03 months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11.03.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034491
7 of 7
