Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hira Lal Karakara vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
249
CWP-602-2023
Date of decision : 09.05.2024
Hira Lal Karakara ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate for
Ms. Snigdha Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the
petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk/Junior in
Municipal Corporation, Abohar and worked from 29.10.1993 to
11.09.2014 and 06.11.2014 to 17.03.2016. Thereafter, he was posted as
Junior Assistant at Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. On attaining the
age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2022.
When the retiral dues of the petitioner were not released, he made
various representations dated 07.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 23.11.2022 and
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065037
30.11.2022 to the respondents for releasing his retiral dues but to no
avail. Hence this petition.
3. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondent
No.2 has been filed in the Court which is taken on record. In the said
reply, it has been averred as under :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
6. That it is further submitted here that after the
retirement of the petitioner, the answering respondent
disbursed his pensionary and retirement benefits. It is
apposite to mention here that the total retiral benefits
including medical allowance amounting to Rs.18,32,817/-
was disbursed to the petitioner vide cheque No.164834
dated 31.10.2022 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, vide cheque
No.080188 dated 02.03.2023 amounting to Rs.1,76,228/-,
cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/-, vide cheque No.082325
dated 03.04.2023 amounting Rs.12,87,202/- and vide
cheque No.539854 dated 17.05.2023 amounting to
Rs.2,19,387/-.
xx xx xx xx xx"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2022 and since the retiral
dues of the petitioner have been released after a considerable delay,
therefore, he is entitled for interest on the same 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 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of
Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2,
while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that since
the whole amount of retiral dues has already been paid to the petitioner,
therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065037
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner,
no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him,
therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a
reasonable time after his retirement. Moreover, a perusal of reply filed
by the respondent No.2 shows that although the retiral dues of the
petitioner have been released, however, the same have been released
after a considerable delay and no explanation has been furnished for not
releasing the same at the time of retirement or within a reasonable time
thereafter.
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065037
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 respondent No.2 is directed to
pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the delayed payment
of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till
the actual date of payment, within a period of 03 months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
09.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
