Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asha Rani vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
240
CWP-23583-2021
Date of decision : 06.05.2024
Asha Rani ....Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Gaurav Kalsi, Advocate for
Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Mohit Kansal, Advocate for
Mr. Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for respondent No.4.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-7),
passed by respondent No.4, whereby the retiral benefits of the petitioner
has been refused to be released on account of crunch of funds and claim
of the petitioner for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral
benefits has also been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the petitioner has served as Peon with respondent No.4 and
retired as such on 31.07.2020, on attaining the age of superannuation.
Out of total amount of retiral benefits i.e. Rs.15,00,035/-, only
Rs.1,00,000/- has been disbursed to the petitioner at the time of her
retirement and thereafter, on two occasions, an amount of Rs.2,15,000/-
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062518
has been disbursed to the petitioner. The amount of Rs.11,85,035/- is
still due. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents
for releasing her retiral dues but to no avail. Thereafter, for releasing her
retiral dues, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP
No.16546 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order
dated 26.08.2021, by directing the respondents to consider the
representations of the petitioner and decide the same, in accordance
with law, by passing a speaking order, preferably, within a period of one
month from the date of passing of the order. Pursuant to order dated
26.08.2021, passed by this Court, respondent No.4 has passed the
impugned order dated 30.09.2021 and the remaining retiral benefits
have been released during the pendency of the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired from service on 31.07.2020 and since the retiral
dues of the petitioner have been released after the petitioner has
approached this Court and after a considerable delay, therefore, she is
entitled for interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues in view of the
law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs.
State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and J.S. Cheema Vs.
State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355. The details of payment
of retiral dues to the petitioner is as under :-
Sr. No. Amount (Rs.) Date
1. 1,00,000/- 31.07.2020
2. 15,000/- 31.07.2021
3. 1,00,000/- 27.04.2021
4. 1,00,000/- 15.06.2021
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062518
5. 11,85,035/- 11.07.2022
Total 15,00,035/-
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4,
while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that all the
retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner and nothing remains
to be paid. However, he conceded the fact that due to shortage of funds,
delay has occurred in releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner and the
same is not intentional.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the relevant documents.
6. 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
released within a reasonable time after her retirement and since there is
a considerable delay in releasing the same, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of retiral
dues.
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062518
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, 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."
9. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
30.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) is set aside and respondent No.4 is directed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062518
to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the delayed
payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.10.2020 (after two months of her
retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 03 months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
06.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
