Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039910
CWP-26164-2015 2024:PHHC:039910
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216
WP-26164-2015
C
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
Jarnail Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for the respondent.
* ****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer inthepresentCivilWritPetitionfiledunderArticles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus, for directing the respondent to release the retiral benefits of the
petitioner alongwith interest.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has, during the
pendency of the present case, been released the retiral benefits albeit aftera
long delay, for which, he is entitled to grant of interest in view of the
judgment passed by theFullBenchofthisCourtinASRandhawavs.State
of Punjab and others,1997(3) SCT 468.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Board submits that the retiral
benefitscouldnothavebeenreleasedearlierthanthesewere,onaccountofa
criminal case pending against him. On his acquittalon28.02.2020,thesame
were granted without any delay. Even otherwise, thereisnoprovisioninthe
Rules to grant interest.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039910
CWP-26164-2015 2024:PHHC:039910
2
4. Heard learned counsel on either side.
5. Notably, the petitioner was involved in an FIR No.36 dated
06.06.2003, wherein he stoodacquittedvidejudgmentdated28.02.2020. As
is discerniblefromtheaffidavitfiledbythepetitioner,dated01.02.2024,that
the retiral benefits have been released as under:
Sr. No. Paid On Particular Payment made Delay
1. 27.10.2016 CPF (Own Share) Rs. 580945/- 1 year 8 months
2. 27.10.2016 EWF Rs. 5500/- 1 year 8 months
3. 21.09.2022 Gratuity Rs. 994500/- 7 years 7 months
4. 21.09.2022 Leave Encashment Rs. 671800/- 7 years 7 months
5. 28.08.2023 CPF (Board Share) Rs. 1265881/- 8 years 6 months
(emphasis supplied)
6. A beneficial reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44,
wherein, the retiral benefits of the appellant, who had rendered 37 years of
service, which were withheld due to pending disciplinary proceedings, were
releasedafterfouryearsofhisexoneration,butsanstheinterestontheground
of there being no provision forgrantingit,asistheplearaisedinthecaseat
handaswell,itwasobservedthat,"Inthecircumstances,primafacie,weare
of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well
founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are
statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of
interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions,
guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim
benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules,
administrativeinstructionsorguidelines,anemployeecanclaiminterestunder
Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039910
CWP-26164-2015 2024:PHHC:039910
3
retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well
foundedandneedsnoauthorityinsupportthereof.Inthatviewofthematter,
in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the
petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
7. In Swinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others,
CWP-14093-2016, decided on 08.05.2019, by relying on the judgments in
A.S. Randhawa (supra) and J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13)
RCR (Civil) 355, thisCourthadallowedtheinterestonthedelayedpayment
ofretiralbenefitstothepetitionertherein,whoretiredon31.08.2015,against
whom a charge sheet was issued on 20.07.2015, however, the allegations
having not been substantiated, it was dropped. Itwasheldthatthependency
of the charge-sheet could not be made a ground to deny the benefits of
interest, as the same would cause prejudicetohim,withoutanyfaultonhis
part.
8. Petinently, in pursuance to a direction of this Court to justify
non-release of retiral dues to the petitioner, while releasing to other
employees, involved in the same case, an affidavit was filed by the
respondent, stating that challan had not been filed against them till their
retirement, whereas the petitioner retired thereafter, is also not a plausible
reason,astheinitiationofthecriminalproceedingsisuponframingofcharge.
Be that as it may, he, having been acquitted of the charges in the FIR
registered at the hands of the Vigilance Bureau, the withholding of retiral
benefits cannot be found justified, thus, as has been held in Vijay L.
Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 687, award of interest on their
delayed release is necessitated.
9. The petitioner is therefore entitled to grant of interest, which is
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:039910
CWP-26164-2015 2024:PHHC:039910
4
not penal in nature but compensatory, having been deprived of an amount,
which the respondents enriched themselves with.
10. In wake of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as
also the law as explicated, the present writ petition is disposed of, with a
direction to the respondent to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum
fromthedateofretirementtillthedueswerereleased,withinaperiodoftwo
months from the date when a web-print of this judgment is received.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
2 0.03.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
