Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136789
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1354
1354-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19
19-10-2024
NARESH KAUR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Yashvir S. Balhara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner retired
retire from service on 31.03.2020 but hher pensionary benefits
were not released as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 according to
which, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner ar
aree to be released within a
period of two months of the retirement, in case there exists no impediment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
objection being taken by the respondents is that "No Due Certificate" was
not issued to the petitioner on the ground that the petiti
petitioner
oner had not
deposited the TDS with the income tax department.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136789
CWP-1354-2023 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is not required to deposit the TDS rather the respondent-State, was
required to deduct the TDS hence, putting the said blame upon the petitioner
is arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the
petitioner was required to deposit certain amount with the Income Tax
Department, which the petitioner had not deposited due to which some fine
was imposed upon the department hence, the benefits admissible to the
petitioner after retirement were not released.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
It is not a case that the petitioner was being proceeded against
the departmentally by issuing any chargesheet for any default on the part of
the petitioner while discharging the duties of the post. Once, there is no
chargesheet issued to the petitioner, merely on the ground that the petitioner
did not deposited the TDS with the Income Tax Department due to which his
pensionary benefits were withheld, is not a valid ground. In the absence of
any disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of
retirement, the respondents were under obligation to release all the
pensionary benefits keeping in view the judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT
468, wherein it has been held that where there is an inordinate delay 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136789
CWP-1354-2023 (O&M) -3-
the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to
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, 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 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."
Keeping in view of above, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits forthwith and
to grant the petitioner the regular pension instead of provisional pension.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136789
CWP-1354-2023 (O&M) -4-
The petitioner will be entitled for interest including the arrears of pension
any, as well as on delayed release of the pensionary benefits @ 6% per
annum from the date the pensionary benefits became due till the date actual
payment has been made.
Let the amount entitled alongwith interest under this order be
calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the
receipt of copy of this order.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
19-10-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
