Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chatter Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036081
CWP-19366-2020 -1- 2024:PHHC:036081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
243 CWP-19366-2020
Date of Decision :13.03.2024
Chatter Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. HPS Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Tapan Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Krishna Maurya, Advocate for
Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, grievance being raised by the petitioners
is that they are entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of
financial benefits including arrears of salary and pensionary benefits which
has not been granted by the respondents, such act on the part of respondents
is totally illegal and arbitrary.
2. As per the petitioners, the petitioners were appointed as member
of the Haryana Public Service Commission in the year 2004 and retired in
the year 2010. As per the petitioners, arrears of salary/pensionary benefits
were released to the petitioners after much delay, which delay was
attributable to the respondents hence, as per the settled principle of law,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036081
CWP-19366-2020 -2- 2024:PHHC:036081
petitioners are entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of
salary/pensionary benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that though, some of the financial benefits were already released to the
petitioners after the delay but as the present petition has been filed after
more than 05 years of the said payment, the said benefit of interest was
rightly rejected being a time barred.
4. In reply, the respondents have conceded that similarly situated
employees, who had filed CWP-21959-2015 have already been granted the
said benefit of interest by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2020.
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 certain financial benefits were
released to the petitioners after their retirement, which also includes arrears
of salary and pensionary benefits. It is also conceded position before this
Court that qua other similarly situated employees, whose salary/pensionary
benefits were also delayed, who had filed CWP-21959-2015, this Court had
already granted the benefit of interest on the said delayed release of the
financial benefits vide order dated 13.02.2020. Once, the benefit of interest
has already been extended to the similarly situated employees by this Court,
the same cannot be denied to the petitioners.
7. The only argument which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the respondents is that the present petition has been filed after
the five years of the payment hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
8. It may be noticed that respondent-State is a welfare State and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036081
CWP-19366-2020 -3- 2024:PHHC:036081
once, this Court in the case of similarly situated employees had already
allowed the benefit of interest on the delayed release of salary/financial
benefits, the respondents should have extended the said benefit to the
petitioners themselves keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by
the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4382 of 2002 decided on
21.03.2002, titled as, Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana wherein, it has
been held that in case a question of law is settled by the Court, all the
similarly situated persons must be extended the said benefit without forcing
them to approach the Court. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as
under:-
"11. State has pervasive obligations to discharge in
relation to maintaining its expected standards of
employer employee relationship. As already noticed, one
of the important facets of such obligations is to be
reasonable and fair in granting service benefit to its
employees in accordance with service rules and the
principles enunciated on pronouncement of judgments by
the Courts. When judgments attain finality to which the
State is a party, duty is casted upon the State to grant
relief to its employees who are similarly situated and on
identical facts. Benefit of such approach are many and it
causes no disadvantage to the interests of the State. It is
not necessary for the State to require each one of its
employees to approach the Courts of law for grant of a
relief which the State ought to grant to the employees in
normal course of its administration, particularly, the
cases of the kind afore-referred. Such principles is well
known and accepted for years now. By referring to few
judgments we would only predicate the principle with
greater emphasis of its application in the day-to-day
affairs of the State. In the case of Dr.(Mrs.) Santosh
Kumari v. Union of India and others, JT 1994(7) SC
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036081
CWP-19366-2020 -4- 2024:PHHC:036081
565: 1995 (1) SCT 527 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as under:-
"The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It
does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does
not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend
upon who comes to the Court. A more deserving
candidate may not have the means of approach the
Court".
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded
hereinbefore, present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
grant the benefit of interest on the delayed release of the financial benefits
which includes salary/pensionary benefits to the petitioners, as granted to the
similarly situated employees by this Court in CWP-21959-2015 titled as Om
Parkash vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 13.02.2020
(Annexure P/2).
10. Let the order be complied within a period of 08 weeks of the
receipt of the copy of this order.
March 13, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
