Amrik Singh And Another vs Punjab Water Resources Management And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6577 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amrik Singh And Another vs Punjab Water Resources Management And ... on 22 March, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479



                                                      2024:PHHC:042479

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

231

                                             CWP-14551-2022
                                             Date of decision : 22.03.2024

Amrik Singh and another                                     ....Petitioners

                                 V/S

Punjab Water Resources Management and Development
Corporation Limited and others                    ....Respondents

CORAM :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:    Mr. P.M. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, A.A.G., Punjab
            for respondents No.4 and 6.

            None for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5.

                                 ****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of

certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.07.2019 (Annexure P-4),

whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest on the

delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment has been rejected

and order dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure P-7), whereby an appeal filed by

the petitioners against order dated 25.07.2019 has also been dismissed.

The petitioners further sought a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioners on the

delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment from the due date to

the date of actual payment.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479

2024:PHHC:042479

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the

petition, are that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 retired from service on

31.01.2018 and 28.02.2018, respectively, on attaining the age of

superannuation, whereas the payment of gratuity was made to them on

13.06.2018 and 20.08.2018, respectively and leave encashment was

paid to them on 10.12.2018. The petitioners made representation on

25.09.2018 and thereafter, served a legal notice dated 28.01.2019 to the

respondents requesting them to pay interest on the delayed payment of

gratuity and leave encashment, however, no action was taken on the

same. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP-

6573-2019 for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay interest on

delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment. The said writ

petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2019 with a direction to

the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 28.01.2019 by passing a

speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt

of certified copy of the order. Pursuant to order dated 12.03.2019 passed

by this Court, respondent No.5 vide order dated 25.07.2019 rejected the

claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order stating that delay

has been caused due to departmental correspondence and the

Corporation is totally depended upon the State Government for funds.

Thereafter, the petitioners again approached this Court by filing CWP-

25566-2019 seeking quashing the order dated 25.07.2019 which was

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.09.2019 with liberty to file

an appeal against the order dated 25.07.2019. Accordingly, the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479

2024:PHHC:042479

petitioners filed appeal against that order which was rejected vide order

dated 26.06.2020. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 retired from service on 31.01.2018 and

28.02.2018, respectively and since the retiral benefits of the petitioners

were released after a considerable delay, therefore, they are 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. Randhawa Vs. State of

Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468; J.S. Cheema Vs. State of

Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 and Davinder Kaur Vs. State of

Punjab : 2021(1) S.C.T. 644. The details of gratuity and leave

encashment paid to the petitioners is as under :-

Petitioner No.1

Details Amount Due Date Date of Receipt

Gratuity 10,00,000/- 31.01.2018 13.06.2018

Leave Encashment 9,08,880/- 31.01.2018 10.12.2018

Petitioner No.2

Details Amount Due Date Date of Receipt

Gratuity 10,00,000/- 28.02.2018 20.08.2018

Leave Encashment 6,01,938/- 28.02.2018 10.12.2018

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that all the retiral

dues have already been released to the petitioners. However, she

conceded the fact that there was some delay occurred in releasing the

gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479

2024:PHHC:042479

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned State counsel and gone through the relevant documents.

6. None was present on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 & 5

on the last date of hearing and therefore, the matter was adjourned for

today with an observation that no further adjournment shall be granted.

Despite that none has chosen to cause appearance on behalf of the

respondents No.1 to 3 & 5.

7. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioners,

no departmental proceedings/criminal case were pending against them,

therefore, the retiral benefits of the petitioners were required to be

released within a reasonable time after their retirement and since there is

a considerable delay in releasing the same, therefore, the petitioners

cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of retiral

dues as weak financial position is no valid ground to withhold the

payment in respect of the retiral benefits as held by law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479

2024:PHHC:042479

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 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 principles

of law, the present petition is allowed and the respondents-Corporation

is directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioners, on the

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042479

2024:PHHC:042479

delayed payment of retiral dues on expiry of two months from the date

of their retirement (i.e. petitioner No.1 from 01.04.2018 and petitioner

No.2 from 01.05.2018) till the actual date of payment, within a period of

03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

22.03.2024                                            (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal                                                 JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                      Yes/No




                                 6 of 6