Narinder Mohan Parashar vs State Of Pb. Through Secy. And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 5556 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Mohan Parashar vs State Of Pb. Through Secy. And Ors on 12 March, 2024

                                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035333




‭CWP-3949-1998‬                                  ‭2024:PHHC:035333‬
                                                                 ‭1‬
                ‭IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA‬
                            ‭AT CHANDIGARH‬
‭211‬
                                                           ‭ WP-3949-1998‬
                                                           C
                                                           ‭Date of decision: 12.03.2024‬

‭Narinder Mohan Parashar‬
                                                                                      ‭....Petitioner‬
                                          ‭Versus‬

‭State of Punjab and others‬
                                                                                      ‭...Respondents‬

‭CORAM:‬ ‭HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY‬ ‭*****‬ ‭Present :‬ ‭Mr. A.S Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner.‬

‭Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.‬

‭*****‬ ‭AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.‬

‭1.‬ ‭Prayer‬‭in‬‭the‬‭present‬‭writ‬‭petition‬‭filed‬‭under‬‭Articles‬‭226/‬‭227‬‭of‬

‭the‬ ‭Constitution‬ ‭of‬ ‭India,‬ ‭is‬ ‭for‬ ‭directing‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents‬ ‭to‬ ‭grant‬ ‭interest‬ ‭on‬

‭G.P. Fund from the date due till actual disbursement to the petitioner.‬

‭2.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭would‬ ‭submit‬ ‭that‬ ‭the‬ ‭petitioner‬ ‭retired‬ ‭on‬

‭attaining‬ ‭the‬ ‭age‬ ‭of‬ ‭superannuation‬ ‭on‬ ‭31.12.1995.‬ ‭However,‬ ‭the‬ ‭G.P.‬ ‭Fund‬

‭amounting‬ ‭to‬ ‭Rs.1,85,392/-‬ ‭was‬ ‭released‬ ‭belatedly‬ ‭on‬ ‭14.09.1996.‬ ‭The‬ ‭only‬

‭reason‬ ‭given‬ ‭in‬ ‭the‬ ‭written‬‭statement‬‭was‬‭procedural‬‭delay.‬‭Reliance‬‭has‬‭been‬

‭placed‬ ‭on‬‭the‬‭judgment‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Full‬‭Bench‬‭of‬‭this‬‭Court‬‭in‬‭A.S.‬‭Randhawa‬‭vs.‬

‭State of Punjab and others,‬‭1997(3) SCT 468‬‭.‬

‭3.‬ ‭Learned‬ ‭State‬ ‭counsel‬ ‭opposed‬ ‭by‬ ‭referring‬ ‭to‬ ‭the‬ ‭written‬

‭statement‬‭stating‬‭that‬‭the‬‭petitioner‬‭ought‬‭to‬‭have‬‭applied‬‭for‬‭retiral‬‭benefits‬‭six‬

‭months‬‭prior‬‭to‬‭retirement.‬‭He‬‭had‬‭applied‬‭on‬‭30.01.1996,‬‭it‬‭was‬‭sanctioned‬‭on‬

‭03.05.1996, released on 14.09.1996 and as such, there was no delay.‬

‭4.‬ ‭Heard.‬

‭5.‬ ‭As‬ ‭per‬ ‭the‬ ‭judgment‬ ‭in‬ ‭A.S.‬ ‭Randhawa‬ ‭(supra),‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬

‭would‬ ‭be‬ ‭entitled‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭compensated‬ ‭by‬ ‭granting‬ ‭interest‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭State‬ ‭on‬

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035333

‭CWP-3949-1998‬ ‭2024:PHHC:035333‬ ‭2‬ ‭account of delayed disbursal of retiral benefits.‬

‭6.‬ ‭Hon'ble‬ ‭the‬ ‭Supreme‬ ‭Court‬ ‭in‬ ‭Vijay‬ ‭L.‬ ‭Mehrotra‬ ‭vs.‬ ‭State‬ ‭of‬

‭UP‬‭,‬ ‭2001‬ ‭(9)‬ ‭SCC‬ ‭687,‬ ‭held‬‭that‬‭in‬‭case‬‭there‬‭is‬‭no‬‭justification‬‭or‬‭reason‬‭for‬

‭delayed payment of retiral benefits, interest would be liable to be paid.‬

‭7.‬ ‭This‬ ‭Court‬‭in‬‭J.S.‬‭Cheema‬‭vs.‬‭State‬‭of‬‭Haryana‬‭,‬‭2014(13)‬‭RCR‬

‭(Civil)‬ ‭355,‬ ‭held‬ ‭that,‬ ‭the‬ ‭interest‬ ‭has‬ ‭to‬ ‭be‬ ‭given‬ ‭to‬ ‭an‬ ‭employee‬ ‭where‬ ‭an‬

‭amount‬ ‭belonging‬ ‭to‬ ‭him,‬ ‭was‬ ‭retained‬ ‭and‬ ‭utilised‬ ‭by‬ ‭the‬ ‭respondents,‬ ‭has‬

‭been released on a later date.‬

‭8.‬ ‭Considering‬ ‭the‬ ‭peculiar‬ ‭facts‬ ‭and‬ ‭circumstances‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭case,‬ ‭in‬

‭light‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭afore-referred‬ ‭judicial‬‭pronouncements,‬‭the‬‭present‬‭writ‬‭petition‬‭is‬

‭disposed‬‭of,‬‭with‬‭a‬‭direction‬‭to‬‭the‬‭respondents‬‭to‬‭pay‬‭the‬‭interest‬‭at‬‭the‬‭rate‬‭of‬

‭6%‬‭per‬‭annum‬‭on‬‭the‬‭amount‬‭of‬‭G.P.‬‭Fund‬‭w.e.f‬‭30.01.1996‬‭till‬‭14.09.1996,‬‭the‬

‭date‬‭of‬‭actual‬‭disbursement,‬‭within‬‭a‬‭period‬‭of‬‭two‬‭months‬‭from‬‭the‬‭date‬‭when‬

‭a web-print of this judgment is received.‬

‭(AMAN CHAUDHARY)‬ ‭JUDGE‬ 1‭ 2.03.2024‬ ‭Hemant‬

‭ hether speaking/reasoned‬ W :‭‬ ‭ es / No‬ Y ‭Whether reportable‬ ‭:‬ ‭Yes / No‬

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035333

2 of 2