Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpyar Singh vs The Punjab State Warehousing ... on 14 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
255+106
CWP-8316-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 14.05.2024
Gurpyar Singh ...Petitioner
V/S
The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-7064-CWP-2024
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 of
CPC is for placing on record replication to the written statement filed on
behalf of the respondent along with Annexures P/17 to P/19 and
exemption from filing certified/typed copies of Annexures P/17 to P/19.
Allowed as prayed for.
CWP-8316-2023
1. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen of the age of 72
years, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the
orders dated 08.06.2022 (Annexure P-11) and 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-
8) passed by the respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for
grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has been
rejected. Further sought a writ of mandamus for directing the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067270
respondent to release the interest on the delayed payment of retiral
benefits of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the petitioner was appointed as an Account Clerk in the
respondent-Corporation on 13.07.1978 and retired from the post of
Godown Assistant, on attaining the age of superannuation, on
31.01.2009. The respondent-Corporation has not released his retiral
benefits and after a period of 05 years of his retirement, they issued a
show cause notice to him on 29.01.2014 on the allegations pertaining to
the year 2007. The said show cause notice was withdrawn by the
respondents vide order dated 27.12.2021/05.01.2022 (Annexure P-5)
and thereafter, the retiral dues of the petitioner were released. The
petitioner submitted representation and legal notice to the respondent
for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits which
were considered and rejected by the respondent-Corporation vide
impugned orders dated 25.03.2022 and 08.06.2022 without assigning
any reason whatsoever. Hence, the present petition.
3. Written statement on behalf of the respondent-Corporation
has been filed in the Court which is taken on record. Copy thereof has
been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said written
statement, it has been averred as under :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
2. That it would be pertinent to mention here that the
petitioner was retired from the respondent department and
after his retirement one show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner on 29.01.2014 for the allegations pertaining
to the year 2007 and due to this reason all the retiral
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067270
benefits of the petitioner were not released to him. It is
pertinent to mention here that as and when the above show
cause notice was withdrawn from the petitioner vide order
dated 05.01.2022 then immediately the pending retiral
benefits of the petitioner were released to him on
27.01.2022. Some of the retiral benefits of the petitioner
were hold due to pendency of show cause notice and there
is no malafide delay and therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled for any interest on the payment of retiral benefits.
Therefore, there are no merits in the above writ petition
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
xx xx xx xx xx"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was
nothing adverse against the petitioner on the date of his retirement and
after 05 years of his retirement a show cause notice dated 29.01.2014
was issued for the allegations relating to the year 2007 and on reply
being filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the same
was withdrawn by the respondents vide order dated 27.12.2021/
05.01.2022 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest
on the retiral dues which have been released after a considerable delay.
The retiral dues have been released on the following dates :-
Sr. Date Amount Remarks
No. (in Rs.)
1. 29.05.2012 3,74,651/- Gratuity
2. 21.01.2022/ 2,54,614/- Leave Encashment
27.01.2022
3. 21.01.2022/ 60,716/- Gratuity
27.01.2022
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent,
while referring to the averments made in the written statement, submits
that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released after the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067270
show cause notice dated 29.01.2014 was withdrawn and there is no
intentional delay on the part of the respondents.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Admittedly the petitioner retired on 31.01.2009 and except
for issuance of show cause notice dated 29.01.2014, there was nothing
adverse against the petitioner. Since the said show cause notice was
also withdrawn on 27.01.2021/05.01.2022, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of retiral
dues.
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
the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the
date of his retirement."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067270
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 respondent-Corporation is
directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the
delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.04.2009 (i.e. 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.
14.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
