Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142272
CWP-26171-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CWP-26171-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.10.2024
Mohar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Umesh Narang and Mr. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates
for the petitioner
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for directions to the
respondents to release the pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and commutation of
pension amounting to Rs.29 lacs approximately, which have been withheld
without any justification, while the petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.08.2021 from the post of Superintendent.
2. A reference has been made to averments made in para 14 of the
petition, which reads thus:
"That it is pertinent to mention here that as many as
seven employees who were in the purchase committee and
against whom the inquiry was namely Shrikant Sharma,
General Foreman, Satbir Singh Binder, Raj Kumari,
Administrative Officer, Subhash Chand, Assistant Section
Holder and Umed Singh, Section Holder have already been
released all the pensionary benefits by the department, whereas
the petitioner who was just a proxy in the inspection team and
was not the member of Purchase Committee, his pensionary
benefits have been withheld."
3. Learned State counsel had sought time on 14.10.2024 to obtain
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142272
CWP-26171-2024 (O&M) - 2-
instructions with regard to the aforesaid paragraph but has been unable to refute
the averments made hereinabove and on instructions from Rajesh Kumar, ADA,
Printing and Stationery Department states that the Vigilance Report dated
07.02.2024 has been received, which is in favour of the petitioner and prays that 2
months' time be granted for releasing the benefits.
4. The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner, who
however, prays for grant of interest on the delay caused on the part of the
respondents, in which regard, a gainful reference can be made to the judgment of
full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab and others,
1997(3) SCT 468, wherein it was held that an employee would be entitled to be
compensated by granting interest by the State on account of delayed disbursal of
retiral benefits. Further, in J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR
(Civil) 355, it was observed that, the interest has to be given to an employee where
an amount belonging to him, was retained and utilized by the respondents, has
been released on a later date.
5. Learned State counsel has been unable to offer any plausible reason
for the delay so caused or draw out any distinctive aspect in the aforementioned
judgments or cite any contrary law, in wake of which, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the
petitioner within the period as sought by her, alongwith interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on the same, from the date they fell due till realisation.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
29.10.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
