Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151804
109+289 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-17373
17373-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP No.16776 of 2023
Date of Decision : 20
20-11-2024
AMARJIT KAUR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
CM-17373
17373-CWP-2024
This is an application for placing on record reply by way of
affidavit of Shish Ram, Deputy Accountant General, Respondent (Pension)
on behalf of Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Sector
Sector-17,
17, Chandigarh
respondent No.5.
Keeping in view
ew the contents mentioned in the application, the
same is allowed. Reply of respondent No.5 is taken on record subject to all
just exceptions.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151804
CM-17373-CWP-2024 in/and
In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that the PPO No.Pb/1121074634 was not corrected so as to
give the revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner after retirement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, after the
filing of the present petition, the benefits have been released after correcting
the PPO number but as there is a delay in the release of the pensionary
benefits, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed
release the pensionary benefits keeping in view the settled principle of law
in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply.
In the reply, the respondents have conceded the fact that there was a
discrepancy in the pension payment order which was rectified and the
amount for which the petitioner is entitled for, have been released to him.
The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are holding respondent No.5
responsible for the delayed release of payment.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
It may be noticed that a Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, has held
that where there is an inordinate delay of more than two months keeping in
view the date of retirement 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151804
CM-17373-CWP-2024 in/and
ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the
retirer 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 front 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."
Apart from this, 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 J.S. Cheema's case (supra) 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."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151804
CM-17373-CWP-2024 in/and
Learned State counsel submits that wrong PPO was prepared
which fault lies on respondent No.5 hence, the State cannot be burdened
with interest keeping in view the mistake of respondent No.5.
It may be noticed that respondent No.5 is the only the Agent of
the Administrative Department for releasing the pensionary benefits of
employee. Any mistake on the part of the respondent No.5 to release the
pension within timeframe is to be attributed to the Administrative
Department only. Hence, the Administrative Department cannot escape the
liability to pay interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits by
putting the blame upon respondent No.5 i.e., the Agent.
Keeping in view of above, the petitioner is held entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount became due till the
actual payment of the same.
Present petition is disposed of.
Let the order be complied with within a period of 8 weeks from
the receipt of copy of this order.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
20-11-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
