Daya Singh vs State of Haryana

Daya Chaudhary, J.—At the time of filling this petition, the prayer of the petitioner was for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the retiral as well as all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, all retiral benefits have been released but petitioner is also entitled to interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment and other retiral benefits as there was an inordinate delay in releasing these benefits.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition has become infructuous and petitioner is not entitled for interest as one criminal case under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. & 13(1)(d) I.P.C. of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not found to be involved in the inquiry and all allegations levelled against him are baseless and without any substance as no such duty was assigned to the petitioner during that period. Learned counsel has also brought to notice of the Court the order dated 24.05.2006, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was admitted and interim order was also passed on that very date.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant record available on the file.

Admittedly, there is delay in releasing the retiral benefits.

The delay is stated to have been occurred on the ground of registration of a criminal case which is still pending. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2, cannot be accepted as the revision petition is still pending and interim order is also there. Simply on the basis of registration of FIR, retiral benefits cannot be stopped or withheld as it has been held in Manohar Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, : Manohar Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

As noted above, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated when the petitioner was in service. Orders of punishment were also passed when the petitioner was in service. A minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, the Department has not recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct. However, on the same allegation, FIR had been registered. The criminal proceedings are, therefore, continuing. Proceedings under Rule 2.2(b) of the Pension Rules can only be initiated on the conclusion of the criminal trial and the petitioner is found guilty of the charge u/s 408 I.P.C. The provision contained in Clause (c) cannot be read in isolation of the provisions contained in Clause 2.2(b) as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The continuation of the criminal case cannot deprive the petitioner of the death-cum-retirement gratuity. As noticed earlier, the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 3018/- with the respondents on 17.05.1999 i.e. only four days after the FIR No. 112 was registered on 13.5.1999. Thereafter, he served the Board for four years till he retired on superannuation on 31.05.2003. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire retiral benefits.

In the above cited case the retiral benefits were also withheld due to pendency of the criminal proceedings and directions were issued by this Court to release all benefits within a period of three months. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also entitled to interest, carries weight. Undoubtedly there is delay in releasing the retiral benefits and the reason stated for the same is not justified. The petitioner is therefore held entitled for interest on the delayed payment after expiry of two months from the date of retirement at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment. It is also ordered that the interest accrued on retiral benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The competent authority should probe as to who was at fault in not releasing the retiral benefits well within time and why delay has occurred so that it may not occur in releasing payment to others retired employees in future.