Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh vs Punjab Mandi Board And Anr on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
254
CWP-2944-2023
Date of decision : 03.09.2024
Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner
V/S
Punjab Mandi Board and another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Nirmal Singh Kandhola, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature
of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the interest @ 18%
per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present
petition, are that the petitioner has retired from the service of the
respondents on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.07.2020. After
his retirement, the petitioner was given retiral benefits but the gratuity
amount was not released because a condition was imposed in the No
Due Certificate issued vide office order dated 29.07.2020 to the effect
that No Due Certificate is being linked with the complaint dated
06.07.2000 of the Chairman Market, Committee, Ludhiana and
complaint dated 02.07.2020 received in the Establishment Branch. A
Committee, comprising of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Khanna,
Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana-I and Sub
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (East), was constituted by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ludhiana to inquire into the abovesaid complaints. The
said Committee after conducting inquiry, gave its report dated
19.03.2021 stating that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are
not proved and it was recommended to file the complaints. Thereafter,
respondent No.1 passed order dated 05.08.2022, whereby the abovesaid
complaints were filed and condition imposed in the No Due Certificate
issued to the petitioner was deleted. After passing of said order, the
gratuity amount was released to the petitioner on 08.08.2022 without
any interest on the delayed payment. Thereafter, the petitioner served a
legal notice dated 24.02.2022 to respondent No.2 for grant of interest on
the delayed payment of gratuity amount which was replied by
respondent No.2, vide letter dated 28.10.2022, however, the said letter is
silent about making payment of interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity amount. Hence, this petition.
3. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply on behalf of the
respondents has been filed, wherein it has been stated as under :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
4. That the true facts involved in the present case are at
the time of retirement i.e 30.07.2020, the petitioner was
posted as District Mandi Officer at Ludhiana and there
were two complaints dated 02.07.2020 and 06.07.2020
were pending against him.
5. That as per the first complaint dated 02.07.2020,
which was given by one Kaka Singh to the office of
respondent no.2, the allegations against the petitioner were
that the petitioner is illegally giving contracts to his near
and dear, without following the due process of publishing
the same in newspaper and by putting the same only on the
notice board of his office. Thereafter second complaint
dated 06.07.2020 was forwarded by the Chairman Market
Committee Ludhiana to the respondent no.1 with the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
allegations that the petitioner is collecting illegal parking
fee from the general public and harassing the vendors. As
the petitioner was misusing his position, therefore keeping
in view the seriousness of the allegations and following the
due process, only the provisional pension was released to
the petitioner and further some of his retiral benefits were
withheld.
6. That thereafter the committee constituted by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, after completing the
investigation regarding the matter, sent its report through
letter No. 430/Reader Dated 19.03.2021 to the Board. This
report has been received from the Office of the Deputy
Commissioner, Ludhiana at the Head Office Punjab Mandi
Board on 12.11.2021 (Annexure-R-1/1). After the
completion of this investigation by the Joint Investigation
Committee, the following suggestions were sent:-
a. The rotation of the officers and supervisory staff
concerned for the collection of parking fee should be
changed every 3 months.
b. That CCTV should be installed at all parking gates.
c. Daily traffic audit by installing cameras should be
done on a fixed date of every month under the
supervision of the representative of the concerned
Secretary Market Committee and District Market
Officer so that any kind of lapse in recovery can be
prevented.
d. The audit is recommended to be conducted after
every 3 months by senior officials deemed competent
by Hon'ble Secretary Marketing Board Punjab.
7. That keeping in view the reports of the committee
constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana this
office after following the due process filed all the complaint
against the petitioner vide order 859 (2022) dated
05.08.2022 and the withheld gratuity amount was released
to the petitioner after three days of the order i.e
12.08.2022.
8. That pending complaints against the petitioner
cannot be declared false or baseless without proper
investigation and as soon as the investigation was complete
the competent authority after following the due process
filed all the complaint against the petitioner vide order 859
(2022) dated 05.08.2022.
xx xx xx xx xx"
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has retired from service on 30.07.2020 and payment of
gratuity amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- has been made to him on
12.08.2022 i.e. after a lapse of more than 02 years. He submits that
since there is a considerable delay in releasing the gratuity amount,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the same.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
at the time of retirement of the petitioner, two complaints were pending
against him due to which his gratuity was withheld by the respondents
and as soon as those complaints were filed, the respondents released the
gratuity amount to the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 30.07.2020 and due to pendency
of complaints dated 02.07.2020 and 06.07.2020 against the petitioner,
his gratuity was withheld by the respondents. When the allegations
levelled against the petitioner in the abovesaid complaints were not
proved, both the complaints were filed by respondent No.1 on the
recommendation of the Committee constituted to enquire into the
abovesaid complaints. Thereafter, payment of gratuity amounting to
Rs.20,00,000/- has been made to the petitioner on 12.08.2022. Since
the delay occurred in releasing the gratuity of the petitioner due to
pendency of complaints dated 02.07.2020 and 06.07.2020 which were
filed lateron as the allegations leavelled against the petitioner in the said
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
complaints were not proved, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied
the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount.
8. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an
inordinate delay in releasing benefits 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 ensure the disbursement of pension and other
benefits to the retiree 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 from 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."
9. 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 the said judgment 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114940
(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."
10. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is
directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the
delayed payment of gratuity, w.e.f. 01.10.2020 (i.e. after two months of
his retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 02
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
03.09.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
