Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Kumari vs State Of Punjab Thr Chief Secretary And ... on 30 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129363
CWP-18850-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
107+212 CWP-18850-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision :30.09.2024
Krishna Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:- Mr. Narinder Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
CM-15858-CWP-2024
As prayed for, application is allowed.
Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of
respondent No.2 is taken on record.
CWP-18850-2017
In the present petition, two grievances have been raised by the
petitioner. One, that she has been paid less amount qua her entitlement to
the tune of 21 days of unutilized earned leave at the time of her retirement
Further, as her pensionary benefits have been released after the delay of
more than four months by the respondents, she is entitled for the grant of
benefit of interest on the said delayed release of her pensionary benefits.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129363
CWP-18850-2017 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2015 and, thereafter, claimed
the benefit of extension in service for a period of two years and ultimately
after availing the benefit of extension, she retired from service on
28.02.2017.
The petitioner claimed that during the period of extension in
service, the petitioner had only availed 29 days of earned leave and hence,
as she was entitled for 300 days of earned leave, she should have been
given complete leave encashment of 300 days as admissible under the rules
governing the service and hence, respondents are liable to be directed to
grant the petitioner the benefit of remaining 21 days of earned leave as well.
Further, prayer of the petitioner is that her pensionary benefits
were released in June, 2017 and there is delay of more than 04 months in
the release of the said pensionary benefits and hence, she is entitled for the
grant of benefit of interest.
As per the respondents, the petitioner after availing the benefit
of extension in service, sought 29 days of earned leave from 04.06.2015 to
02.07.2015 and keeping in view the extension granted to the petitioner from
01.03.2015 to 28.02.2017, as on 04.06.2015, she only had 08 days earned
leave in her leave account and hence, when she availed 29 days leave, the
rest 21 days leave was required to be deducted from the total kitty of 300
days.
With regard to the release of pensionary benefits, the
respondents have stated that due to some technical reason, the bills sent to
the District Treasury were not passed and after receiving clarification, the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129363
CWP-18850-2017 (O&M) -3-
bills were passed on 27.06.2017 and payment were made to the petitioners
thereafter.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
With regard to the claim of the petitioner for the encashemnt of
300 days earned leave, it may be noticed that when an employee retires on
attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years, he/she is entitled
for maximum of 300 days of leave encashment. In order to make an
employee work during the extension period, employee is only entitled to
avail the earned leave in case, the same is admissible during the period
he/she has worked on extension and in case, employee avails more leave
than entitled on the day when the leave is claimed, while working on
extension, the same is to be deducted from the total kitty of 300 days so that
the employee does not apply for extension only to adjust the unutilized
earned leaves as only encashment of 300 days is admissible.
In the present case, the respondents are on record to say that
while on extension in service, on 04.06.2015 the petitioner only had 8 days
earned leave and she had availed 29 days of leave hence, 21 days leave
which is more than the leave admissible during the extension period at the
time when the petitioner availed earned leave, same is to be deducted from
the total kitty of 300 days leave, which was admissible to the petitioner at
the time of her retirement. The said action taken by the respondents cannot
be treated as arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner could not have availed
more earned leave than admissible to her as on 04.06.2015 while on
extension. Hence, claim of the petitioner to grant her 21 days leave
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129363
CWP-18850-2017 (O&M) -4-
adjustment is right denied by the respondents.
With regard to the claim of the petitioner for the grant of
benefit of interest on the delayed release of her pensionary benefits, a Full
Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others,
1997(3) SCT 468, has held that an employee is entitled for the release of
his/her pensionary benefits within a period of two months of his/her
retirement in case, there is no impediment, failing which, an employee
concerned is entitled for the grant of benefit of interest. The relevant
paragraph of said judgment is as under:-
"Since a government employee on his
retirementbecomes 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."
In the present case, the petitioner retired from service after
availing the benefit of extension on 28.02.2017 but her retiral benefits have
been released on 27.06.2017 without there being any impediment. As per
the respondents there was certain technical glitch and after giving the
clarification, the pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner, which
delay was only on the part of the respondents hence, the petitioner is held
entitled for the grant of benefit of interest on the delayed release of her
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129363
CWP-18850-2017 (O&M) -5-
pensionary benefits @ 6% per annum from the date the same became due
till the actual payment of the same.
Present petition is disposed of in above terms.
Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also
disposed of.
September 30, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
