Punjab-Haryana High Court
Phool Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 May, 2024
Vinod Kothiyal
2024.05.15 18:35
2024 PHHC:068281
i Shes aay ead
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
239
CWP-3860-2021
Date of decision : 15.05.2024
Phool Chand ...Petitioner
v/S
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. M.K. Saajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harnoor Singh Majitia, Advocate
for respondent No.5 & 6.
3 2k ie 2
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. In compliance with order dated 28.02.2024, Mr. Gurdass
Singh, Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Guru Harshai, District
Ferozepur is present in the Court.
2. 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 on the delayed
3. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the petitioner, who was working as Sweeper in the office of
respondents No.5 & 6, retired from service, on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2019. All the formalities were completed by
Vinod Kothiyal
2024.05.15 18:35
2024:PHHC-008281 $8
CWP-3860-2021 2
the petitioner before his retirement but the respondent-Department has
not released his retiral benefits. The petitioner made a representation
dated 11.12.2019 to respondent No.5 for releasing his retiral benefits but
no action was taken on the same. Thereafter, in the month of September,
2020 the respondent-Department sanctioned monthly pension to the
petitioner but arrears and interest on the delayed payment has not been
released. The petitioner also served a legal notice dated 23.12.2020 to
the respondent-department but to no avail. Hence, the present petition.
4. Reply on behalf of the contesting respondents No.5 and 6
has been filed vide which it has been averred as under :-
66,
XX xX xX xX xX
5. That it is respectfully submitted here that the official
respondents had already paid the whole retiral benefits to
the petitioner for the tune of Rs.17,89,243/- and at present
not a single penny is due with the Nagar Council
Guruharsahai towards petition. The petitioner even had
concealed from this Hon'ble Court regarding the
disbursement of the benefits given to the petitioner by the
official respondents before filling of this present writ.
Hence the motive of the petitioner of filling the present writ
petition was just to harass the official respondent by not
disclosing the true facts and to waste the precious time of
this Hon'ble Court.
6. That amount paid by the Nagar Council
Guruharsahai to petitioner is as follows :-
Cheque No. Date Amount
106207 31.05.2019 1,00,000/-
000065 18.10.2019 50,000/-
114446 10.01.2020 50,000/-
00071 18.02.2020 40,000/-
122577 31.03.2020 50,000/-
Vinod Kothiyal
2024.05.15 18:35
2024:PHHC-008281 $8
CWP-3860-2021 3
000075 19.06.2020 50,000/-
626525 31.07.2020 25,000/-
000583 26.08.2020 10,593/- CPF
003620 13.07.2021 13,04,012/-
Audit Para 1994-1996 6,975/-
recovery
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although all
the retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner during the
pendency of the present petition, however, the same have been released
after a considerable delay. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant
of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits in view of the law
laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.4. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.CT. 468 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of
Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.5
and 6, while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that
all the retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released and nothing
remains to be paid. However, he conceded the fact that due to shortage
of funds, delay has occurred in releasing the retiral benefits to the
petitioner and the same is not intentional.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
8. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner,
no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him,
therefore, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were required to be
Vinod Kothiyal
2024.05.15 18:3
2024-PHHC068284 £
CWP-3860-2021 4
released within a reasonable time after his retirement. Moreover, in the
reply filed by respondents No.5 and 6 no plausible explanation for
delaying the payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner has been
furnished. Since there is a considerable delay in releasing retiral benefits
of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of
interest on the same.
9. A Full Bench of this Court in A..8. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others ; 1997(3} §.C.7 468 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
"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
10. Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in JS.
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: -
2024-PHHC068284 £
CWP-3860-2021 5
"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."
11. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents
No.5 and 6 to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the
delayed payment of retiral benefits w.e.f. 01.08.2019 (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.
15.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
