Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116998
CWP-20662-2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(212) CWP-20662-2018
Date of Decision : September 06, 2024
Jasbir Singh Bedi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate and
Mr. Pranav Chadha, Legal-Aid-Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that he retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2012 and despite the fact that there was no
impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits, the same have been
delayed by the respondents hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of
interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits
that after the retirement, the claim of the petitioner for the release of the
pensionary benefits was dealt with and after completing all the formalities
required for, the pensionary benefits have been released to the petitioner
hence, as the delay was procedural, no interest is liable to be paid to the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116998
petitioner either on the pensionary benefits or on the arrears of pay keeping
in view the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
4. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of
this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT
468, the respondents are under an obligation to release the pensionary
benefits of an employee within a period of two months of his/her retirement
in case there is no impediment failing which, the 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 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."
5. In the present case, the petitioner retired from service on
31.05.2012 and keeping in view the details of the payment released as
depicted in paragraph 6 of the petition, which has not been rebutted by the
respondents, it is clear that there is a delay of more than two months with
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116998
regard to the release of the pensionary benefits as well as the arrears, which
the petitioner became entitled for upon the revision of the pay scale on the
recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission.
6. 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."
7. Keeping in view the above, once no impediment has been
brought to the notice of this Court due to which, there was a delay in the
release of the pensionary benefits of the petitioners, the respondents were
under an obligation to release the pensionary benefits within a period of two
months of the retirement hence, the petitioner will be entitled for interest on
the delayed release of the pensionary benefits as well as on the arrears of
salary and other benefits which were released to the petitioner in the year
2017-2018 @ 6% per annum. The interest will be calculated from the date
the amount became due till the same was actually paid. Let the present
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116998
order be complied with within a period of 8 weeks of the receipt of copy of
this order.
8. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
September 06, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
