Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lajo Rani vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937
CWP No.10746 of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110-3
CWP No.10746 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.05.2024
Lajo Rani
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who is widow of Sh. Somi Ram, who was
working as Safai Sewak in the office of Municipal Council, Rampura
Phul, District Bathinda, who retired on 30.06.2021 and unfortunately
died on 14.07.2021, has approached this Court by way of filing the
instant petition, claiming the remaining retiral dues of her husband.
2. On receipt of advance copy of writ petition, learned
counsel for the State appearing for the respondents, has produced a copy
of letter dated 14.05.2024, addressed by the Executive Officer,
Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda to the Director,
Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein it has been stated that
all the retiral dues of the petitioner have now been released. He further
submits that in this view of the matter, the instant petition has been
rendered infructuous.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although some payments were released by the Municipal Council,
Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, from 30.06.2021 to 14.10.2021 but
some of the remaining payments have been released from 10.10.2022 to
14.05.2024, after a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for grant of interest on the said payments. He further submits
that although the payments have now been released but however, the
respondents have not supplied any calculation sheet to the petitioner to
ascertain as to whether any other amount is due or not.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
5. Admittedly, there was nothing adverse against the husband
of the petitioner when he retired from service on 30.06.2021, on
attaining the age of superannuation. Since there is a considerable delay
in releasing the retiral dues of the husband of petitioner, therefore, the
benefit of interest cannot be denied to the petitioner.
6. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937
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."
7. 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."
8. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled
for grant of interest @ 6% per annum, on the following payments:-
Sr. No. Dated Amount Paid (in Rs.)
1. 10.10.2022 50,000/-
2. 22.06.2023 1,00,000/-
3. 01.01.2024 2,00,000/-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067937
4. 09.05.2024 6,80,541/-
5. 14.05.2024 2,09,600/-
Total Rs.12,40,141/-
Respondent No.4 - Executive Officer, Municipal Council
Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, is directed to grant interest to the
petitioner on the aforesaid delayed payments within a period of 02
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Respondent No.4, shall also supply a calculation sheet to
the petitioner within a period of 02 weeks from today and if the
petitioner has still any grievance, she is at liberty to make a detailed
representation within a period of 01 month thereafter and the same shall
be considered and decided by respondent No.4 - Executive Officer,
Municipal Council, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda, within a period of
02 months thereafter.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
15.05.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
