Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 September, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -1
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.09.2024
Nasib Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral
benefits to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was working with the respondent-Nigam and he retired as
Technical Assistant on 30.06.2017. He submitted that only three days prior to
the retirement of the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued against him vide
Annexure R-1 by levelling various allegations and after his retirement, the
retiral benefits were not paid to the petitioner. He submitted that an enquiry
was conducted and in the enquiry charges were not proved against the petitioner
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -2
at all and it was also held by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has not been
proved to be guilty for causing any loss to the Corporation and on the basis of
the aforesaid enquiry report, the Managing Director of the Corporation who was
the competent authority considered all the pros and cons of the case and decided
the same by passing an order Annexure P-1 on 14.08.2020 stating that the
petitioner is absolved from of all the charges and he is also directed that all the
pending dues be released to the petitioner. It was further directed by the
Managing Director that in order to cover the losses suffered by the Corporation,
the matter be pursued vigorously with the Food Corporation of India. He
submitted that the respondent-Nigam filed a separate writ petition bearing CWP
No.23777 of 2019 for the purpose of recovery and it was dispute inter se the
respondent-Nigam and the FCI but for no justifiable reason, the retiral benefits
of the petitioner have been withheld. He submitted that after the aforesaid order
passed by the Managing Director on 14.08.2020, the retiral benefits were
released to the petitioner. He submitted that all the retiral benefits have now
been paid to the petitioner but the grievance of the present petitioner is with
regard to the interest thereon. He also referred to a Full Bench judgment of this
Court in A.S. Randhawa Versus State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468
and a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Versus
State of Haryana and others, 2014 (1) SCT 782 to contend that so far as the
interest part is concerned, since the amount was kept with the respondent-
Nigam itself to which the petitioner is entitled for the same and the petitioner
is not raising any grievance for the grant of any extra amount in the nature of
damages or compensation and, therefore, at least the amount which was kept
by the respondent-Nigam illegally for that the interest may be paid to the
petitioner.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -3
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Nigam submitted that at the time when the petitioner retired, there
was a charge-sheet pending against him but the charges were not proved
against him and there was a finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner
has not been proved guilty for causing any loss to the Corporation and in view
of the aforesaid reason the competent authority who was the Managing Director
exonerated the petitioner and absolved him from all the charges and also
directed that his pending dues may be released and thereafter immediately the
entire amount was paid to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner would
not be entitled for the grant of interest because at the time of retirement, a
charge-sheet was pending against him and therefore, the respondents were well
within their rights to have not paid the retiral benefits to the petitioner. He also
submitted that a separate writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Nigam
against the FCI for recovery of the amount in pursuance of the order passed by
the Managing Director vide Annexure P-1.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The only prayer of the petitioner in the present case is for the grant
of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. A separate writ petition
for the grant of interest on the retiral benefits is certainly maintainable in view
of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra).
The petitioner retired on 30.06.2017 and three days prior to his retirement, a
charge-sheet was served upon him vide Annexure R-1. No doubt the charge-
sheet was pending against the petitioner at the time when he retired and it
culminated into his exoneration vide Annexure P-1 on 14.08.2020 but there is
nothing on the record to show as to whether any order has been passed by any
competent authority for withholding of the retiral benefits of the petitioner. It
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -4
is a settled law that on the retirement of an employee all the retiral benefits are
to be paid to him. However, the retiral benefits can always be withheld or
forfeited in case there is any provision of law and in the present case it has
been invoked by the competent authority and by way of application of mind,
an order has been passed by the competent authority as to why and under
which provision of law the retiral benefits are being withheld.
6. During the course of arguments, a specific query was put to the
learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam as to whether there was any specific
order passed by any competent authority for withholding of retiral benefits on
the ground of subsistence of charge-sheet to which he submitted that there is
nothing on record to show the same. In this way, it is very clear that the
petitioner who was entitled for retiral benefits was required to have been
granted the entire retiral benefits at the time of his retirement and in case the
respondent-Nigam wanted to withhold any of the retiral benefits for any reason
whatsoever, then an order ought to have been passed but the same has not been
passed and, therefore, the withholding of the retiral benefits of the petitioner
was without any authority of law and was an arbitrary exercise of power.
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema's case (Supra)
held as under:-
"In my opinion, even if the assertion made in the written
statement is presumed to be correct it would not disentitle
the petitioner for claiming interest. 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
laying it may result in higher rate because then it can also
include the component of damages (in the form of interest).
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -5
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."
8. In the present case, the petitioner is demanding only the interest on
the delayed payment and he is not demanding any extra damages or
compensation because of the negligence on the part of the respondent-Nigam.
The amount of retiral benefits were lying with the respondent-Nigam and out
of which they also earned interest on the same and therefore, the petitioner is
well within his rights to demand the interest on the retiral benefits. The mere
fact that one writ petition was filed by the respondent-Nigam against the FCI
would be of no concern in view of the fact that it was an inter-departmental
dispute between the Nigam and the FCI and which is so reflected in the order
passed by the Managing Director Annexure P-1 that the Nigam may pursue
against the Food Corporation of India. Not only this, it has been specifically
stated in the order Annexure P-1 that in the enquiry report the petitioner has
not been proved guilty for causing any loss to the Corporation and he was
absolved from all the charges by the Managing Director.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondent-Nigam is directed to calculate the interest
@ 6% per annum (simple) from the date of the retirement of the petitioner plus
two months till the date of its actual disbursement and pay the same to the
petitioner, within a period of three months from today. In case the aforesaid
amount is not paid to the petitioner within a period of aforesaid three months,
then the petitioner shall be entitled for future interest @ 9% per annum
(simple).
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115544
CWP-5653-2022 (O&M) -6
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
petitioner shall also be entitled for costs, which are assessed as Rs.10,000/-,
which shall also be paid to him within a period of aforesaid three months.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
04.09.2024 JUDGE
rakesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
