Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bishan Parkash vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136769
CWP-1063-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(209) CWP-1063-2022
Date of Decision : October 19, 2024
Bishan Parkash .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is
that the respondents have withheld the gratuity of the petitioner despite the
fact that on the date when the petitioner retired on attaining the age of
superannuation i.e. on 31.05.2019, there were no disciplinary proceedings
pending against the petitioner and it was only after a period of more than
one and half year, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, which
charge-sheet cannot be taken into account for withholding the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner keeping in view the settled principle of law settled
by this Court in CWP No.7340 of 2017 titled as Satbir Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 31.10.2019.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136769
2. Learned State counsel concedes the factum that on the date
when the petitioner retired, there was no charge-sheet pending against him
but submits that once, subsequently a charge-sheet has been issued, the
respondents can withhold the gratuity.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
4. It is a settled principle of law that the retiral benefits can only
be withheld in case the power exist with the employer to retain the same
under the rules governing the service, under the Rules, it is only in case the
disciplinary proceedings are pending against an employee on the date of
retirement, the gratuity can be withheld whereas, in the present case, it is a
conceded position between the parties that there were no disciplinary
proceedings pending against the petitioner hence, as per the judgment of
this Court in Satbir Singh's case (supra), the respondents did not had
power to retain the gratuity though, the respondents are within their
jurisdiction to decide the disciplinary proceedings in a manner required
keeping in view the rules governing the service, which proceedings have
been initiated after the retirement of the petitioner.
5. Learned State counsel has not been able to distinguish that the
judgment in Satbir Singh's case (supra) is not applicable upon the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
6. Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to release the gratuity admissible to the
petitioner forthwith.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
once, the pensionary benefits have not been released to the petitioner within
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136769
a period of two months of retirement, 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, especially when there was not any impediment existing
on the date of retirement, the respondents are liable to pay the interest on
the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
8. The said argument is a valid argument.
9. As per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.
Randhawa's case (supra), in case there exist no impediment on the date of
retirement, the retiral benefits of the employee are to be released within a
period of two months failing which, employee will be entitled for interest.
The relevant paragraph of the 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 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."
10. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136769
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."
11. It is held that on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits
including the gratuity which is to be released under this order, the petitioner
will be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date pensionary
became due till the actual release of the same. Let the order be complied
with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
12. The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
October 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
