Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhopinder Singh vs The Managing Director, The Punjab State ... on 4 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
246
CWP-11284-2023
Date of decision : 04.11.2024
Bhopinder Singh .....Petitioner
V/S
The Managing Director, The Punjab State Federation
of Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the
nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to release the retiral dues
of the petitioner especially the leave encashment and arrears of salary
etc. along with interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the petitioner had joined the respondent-department on
14.02.1991 as Chief Accounts Officer. He was further promoted to the
post of General Manager and retired as such on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.09.2019. However, the respondent department has
withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner requested the
respondent-department to release his retiral dues vide various letters
dated 21.12.2019, 10.08.2021, 22.12.2021 and 01.04.2022 but to no
avail. Hence, this petition.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143197
CWP-11284-2023
3. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply on behalf of the
respondent has been filed wherein it has been stated as under :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
2. That the petitioner has concealed material facts. It
has been repeatedly averred in the writ petition that the
record of the petitioner is unblemished. It has been averred
in para 5 of the writ petition that no departmental enquiry
or any other case is pending against the petitioner. The fact
is that while the petitioner was posted as General Manager
of Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mill, there were allegations
regarding embezzlement of funds in the purchase of postal
stamps while conducting election of the Board of Directors
of the Bhogpur CSM. There were some other allegations
also. Consequently, a vigilance enquiry was pending
against the petitioner. Keeping in view the vigilance
enquiry which is pending against the petitioner, the leave
encashment of the petitioner had been withheld. It is now
vide letter dated 09.02.2024, the Vigilance Bureau Punjab
had informed the Managing Director Sugarfed that, the
petitioner Bhopinder Singh is not responsible for the
allegations levelled against him as well as for the financial
loss but Sh.Brahm Dutt Sharma, Retired Superintendent
has been held responsible for not maintaining the proper
record of Elections. However, the facts remains that in the
writ petition the petitioner has not disclosed about the
vigilance enquiry and has thus concealed material facts.
xx xx xx xx xx"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired from service on 30.09.2019 and leave encashment
amounting to Rs.11,62,198/- has been credited to the bank account of
the petitioner on 13.09.2024. He submits that although during the
pendency of the present petition the payment of leave encashment has
been released to the petitioner, however, the same has been released
after a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest
on the same.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143197
CWP-11284-2023
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while
referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that since a
vigilance enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of his
retirement, therefore, leave encashment of the petitioner had been
withheld by the respondent and after the conclusion of the said enquiry,
in which the petitioner was not held responsible for the allegations
levelled against him, the leave encashment has been released to the
petitioner immediately.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019 and leave
encashment amounting to Rs.11,62,198/- has been credited to the bank
account of the petitioner on 13.09.2024 i.e. after a delay of about 05
years. The stand taken by the respondent is that due to vigilance enquiry
pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, his leave
encashment had been withheld. Since the petitioner has been discharged
from the allegations levelled against him in the vigilance enquiry and
there is a considerable delay in releasing the retiral dues to the
petitioner, therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the
same.
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,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143197
CWP-11284-2023
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."
9. Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana :
2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court 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 disposed of with a direction to the
respondent to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143197
CWP-11284-2023
delayed payment of leave encashment, w.e.f. 01.01.2020 (i.e. after three
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.
04.11.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
