Govind Kumar And Another Vs State Of Punjab And Others

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

115 paragraphs · 629 words

p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 115%'>

Harpreeet Singh Brar, J

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of thhe Constitutionn of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or directions in thhe nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to pay interest @ 18%% p.a. on the delayed payment of retiral benefits of the late father of petitionerrs to them whiich has been paid after a period of one year.

Learned counsel for the petitiooners inter alia contends that thhe father of peetitioners retired from the services of respondent No.4-Municipaal Council, Gidderbaha on 31.03.2020, andd all his retiral dues were noot released immediately upon his retirement and the respondents are obligated to release his retiral dues within two monthhs after the date of his retirement. The pensionary benefits accrued to the laate father of the petitioner werre released aftter an inordinate delay. As succh, the delay in releasing all hiis retiral dues entitles the petitioners for grant of interest on delayed paymennt in terms of terms of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343.

Per contra, learned counsel foor the respondent(s) submits thaat the retiral dues have already been paid, hoowever, is unable to dispute thaat there has beeen an inordinate delay in the release of the retiral dues and thhe case of the father of petitioners stands squaarely covered by the judgment in A.S. Randhhawa (supra).

Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for thhe parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpirees that the petiitioners were paid retiral dues off their father after an inordinatelly delay. As per the own reply of respondennt No.4, details of the paymentts made are seet out as under:–

Sr. No.

Particulars

Amount to be given

Amount Paid

Dated

Gratuity

985915/-

100000/-

50000/-

25000/-

10000/-

25000/-

10000/-

100000/-

50000/-

25000/-

107958/-

107957/-

31.3.2020

20.5.2020

19.6.2020

19.7.2020

7.9.2020

21.9.2020

27.10.2020

11.11.2020

27.11.2020

8.12.2020

21.12.2020

12.2.2021

18.3.2021

22.9.2021

6.7.2021

5.8.2021

Increased Gratuity

117584/-

10000/-

20000/-

28792/-

15.1.2024

14.2.2024

14.2.2021

10.4.2024

Leave encashment

416810/-

208405/-

5.8.2021

Close Balance in PF

334822

167411/-

13.9.2021

Installment of PF (CPF And PF Advance)

260462/-

8637/-

121595/-

121593/-

5.8.2021

13.9.2021

Outstanding amount as per increase scale which is yet to be deposited in PF

14285/-

7143/-

7142/-

13.9.2021

The increase amount of DA of different time which are yet to be deposited in PF

33213/-

33214/-

13.9.2021

Total

2196305/-

The respondents were obligated to release all retiral dues within two monthss of retirement of petitioner’s father. As such, present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhhawa (supra) wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Respondentts are directed to ensure the reelease the amount of interest on delayed payyment to the petitioners at the rate of 6% per annum in lieu of all admissible retiral dues. The same shall be calculated from two months afteer retirement of father of petitioners tilll its actual realization. Thhe respondent((s)/competent authority is directed to do the needful within 03 months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous appliication(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Govind Kumar And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others

Judgment