Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kaushik And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 15 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:068101
CWP-8218-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114 CWP-8218-2024
Date of Decision : 15.05.2024
RAKESH KAUSHIK AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Anita Balyan, Sr. Panel Counsel
for the respondents-UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. Written statement filed on behalf of respondents is taken on
record. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place
2. Ms. Anita Balyan, Sr. Panel Counsel, at the outset, submits that
respondent has released leave encashment to the petitioners.
3. Mr.Naveen Daryal, Advocate submits that benefit of MACP
was sanctioned, however, it has not been released. He further submits that
petitioners are also entitled to interest on delayed payment in view of
judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, 2008 (3)
SCC 44 and a Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa, Supg.
Engineer (Retd.) v. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 705.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
there is no inordinate delay on the part of respondents. They released
pension within four months and thereafter, substantial part of retiral
benefits was released later on. Meaning thereby substantial payment of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:068101
retiral dues was made within four months from the date of retirement.
With respect to gratuity and leave encashment, she expressed her
inability to controvert the fact that there is delay beyond two months from
the date of retirement
5. The Apex Court in S. K Dua (supra) has clearly held that an
employee can claim interest in terms of Part III of Constitution of India.
The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:
"13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is
not in dispute by and between the parties that the
appellant retired from service on 30-6-1998. It is also
undisputed that at the time of retirement from service, the
appellant had completed more than three decades in
government service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled
to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that
certain charge-sheets/show-cause notices were issued
against him and the appellant was called upon to show
cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated
against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that
all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr
Quraishi against whom serious allegations of
malpractices and misconduct had been levelled by the
appellant which resulted in removal of Mr Quraishi from
the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr Quraishi
then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.
Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the
appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The
fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all
retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also
cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the
appellant after four years.
14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the
view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:068101
be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on
such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the
field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying
on such rules. If there are administrative instructions,
guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the
appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But
even in absence of statutory rules, administrative
instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest
under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14,
19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are
not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well
founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that
view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High
Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine
even without issuing notice to the respondents."
6. A Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa (supra) has
adverted with an identical issue and held that an employee normally
would be paid retiral benefits within two months and in case of payment
beyond two months, he shall be entitled to interest. The relevant extracts
of the said judgment read as:
"9. 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 case [1985 (2) L.L.N. 18] (vide
supra). If the State commits any default in the performance
of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:068101
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. Again, as to what should be the
rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12 per
cent unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant
the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18
per cent."
7. In the wake of aforesaid judgments, it is quite evident that an
employee is entitled to interest if payment of retiral dues is made beyond
two months from the date of retirement. The respondent shall pay interest
@ 6% on the amou`nt of gratuity and leave encashment which was
released beyond two months from the date of retirement of the
petitioners. The respondent shall pay said amount within two months
from today.
8. The petition stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
15.05.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
