Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Mohan vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 10 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065887
CWP-4853-2021 -1-
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4853-2021
Date of decision: 10.05.2024
NARINDER MOHAN ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION
LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING
DIRECTOR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr.S.K.Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for
Ms. Amrita Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR ,J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of
certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure P-8), by
which the pay of the petitioner has been ordered to be reduced and refixed after
retirement and order dated 24.12.2018, whereby an amount of Rs.2,29,710/- has
been recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner after his retirement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2017 and after his
retirement, a sum of Rs.2,29,710/- has been recovered without passing any
specific order and without issuing any show cause notice or granting an
opportunity of personal hearing.
3. On pursuance of notice of motion, short reply by way of affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated as under:-
"5. That inadvertently, after his appointment as
Junior Meter Reader, the pay of the petitioner was wrongly
fixed after giving two promotional increments, despite the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065887
fact that his posting as JMR was to be treated as fresh
appointment and not promotion.
7. That in this way, on the date of his retirement i.e.
31.12.2017, the petitioner was inadvertently and
unintentionally getting the benefit of one additional
increment. As such, when the service book of the petitioner
was sent to the office of AO/EAD PSPCL, Patiala for audit,
it was constrained to raise an objection vide office memo
no.5976 dated 14.06.2018, clarifying the position that the
appointment as Junior Meter Reader was to be considered
as fresh appointment and not promotion.
8. That accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was re-
fixed from the date of his joining as Junior Meter Reader
i.e. 20.06.2000 and it was discovered that a recovery of
Rs.2,29,710/- was liable to be made from him as against the
additional promotional increments given to the petitioner,
to which he was not entitled. The said recovery was made
from the petitioner by way of deduction from the gratuity
payable to him."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the pendency
of the present petition, the said amount of Rs.2,29,710/- has already been
refunded back to the petitioner vide cheque No.772344 dated 26.09.2023, during
the pendency of the present petition, therefore, nothing survives in the present
petition.
5. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that since, the said amount
has kept by the department till 26.09.2023, therefore, he is entitled for the grant
of interest on the said amount. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner confines his prayer qua grant of interest on the recovered amount
of gratuity.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065887
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 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 the period of
delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his
retirement."
8. Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs.
State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065887
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."
9. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2017 and respondents-Corporation was bound to release
the retiral benefits on the date of retirement or immediately thereafter. However,
the amount of Rs.2,29,710/- was deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner
which has been refunded back on 26.09.2023 after a period of more than 05
years i.e. during the pendency of the present petition. Therefore, the petitioner is
held entitled to the grant of interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount.
10. In view of the above factual position and settled principles of law, the
present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest
@ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the amount of Rs.2,29,710/- which was
deducted from his gratuity after his retirement, w.e.f. 01.03.2018 (after two
months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 02
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
