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
404 paragraphs · 1,847 wordsHarsimran Singh Sethi, J
By this common order, three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3344 of 2018, 1468 of 2018 and 2147 of 2018 are being disposed of as common question of law and similar facts have been stated in all the writ petitions.
The grievance which has been raised in the present writ petitions is that though the petitioners retired on different dates, their pensionary benefits were released after undue and unexplained delay, therefore, the interest is being claimed on the delayed release of the payments. In CWP No. 3344 of 2018, there are four petitioners, whose date of retirement is as under :-
Sr. No.
Name & Designation
Date of Retirement
1
Harjit Singh s/o Ujagar Singh, age 67 years, resident
30.09.2010
of 27-D, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala, Junior Assistant
3028
2
Brij Bhushan s/o Gora Lal, age 67 years, resident of
31.10.2010
House No. 5102, Mohalla Dalapura, Patiala, Junior
Assistant 3059
3
Sham Sunder s/o Ram Chand, age 63 years, 2198,
30.09.2012
Jourrian Bhattian, Patiala, Mechanic 3736
4
Gulshan Lal s/o Manohar Lal, age 67 years, resident
31.10.2011
of 433, Partap Gate (Chowk), Kaithal, Senior
Assistant 3325
In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, details of the payments alongwith the date of release of the same have been mentioned, which is as under :
Sr.
Petitioner
Gratuity (Rs.) with
Leave
GPF (Rs.)
Period of late
No.
date of payment
encashment
with date of
payment
(Rs.) with
payment
date of
payment
Y
M
D
1
Harjit Singh
389516 dt. 27.4.2011
255420
295496
01
03
17
26341 dt. 17.4.2012
dt. 27.6.2011
dt. 5.7.2013
2
Brij Bhushan
380459 dt. 29.12.2011
249280
529261
01
01
28
dt. 20.8.2011
dt. 9.7.2013
3
Sham Sunder
200000 dt. 9.10.2013
329380
450928
03
08
01
277601 dt. 11.2.2015
dt. 31.5.2016
dt. 10.2.2015
4
Gulshan Lal
523957 dt. 2.1.2012
317550
557817
00
06
28
dt. 29.5.2012
dt. 9.12.2015
In CWP No. 2147 of 2018, there are 10 petitioners, whose date of retirement is as under :-
Sr.
Name & Designation
Date of
No.
Retirement
1
Varinderpal Singh s/o Mehar Singh, r/o Sant Nagar,
31.12.2016
Mahelan Road, Sangrur, Age 59 years, Superintendent-
4376
2
Charanjit Singh s/o Nikha Singh, Village & P.O. Badru
31.05.2014
Khan, Distt. Sangrur, Age 63 years, Helper-3984
3
Karnail Singh Gunman s/o Partap Singh, Village & P.O.
31.01.2016
Saron, Disttt. Sangrur, Age 63 years, 4234
4
Gurcharan Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh, Village & P.O.
30.11.2014
Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, Age 63 Fitter
5
Lal Singh s/o Sucha Singh, Village & P.O. Dugal Kalan,
31.08.2016
Tehsil Patrain, Distt. Patiala, Age 52 years, Clerk - 4414
6
Kuldeep Singh s/o Chanan Singh, Village & P.O.
30.04.2015
Mangwal, Distt. Sangrur, Age 60 years, Superintendent-
4037
7
Rajwinder Singh s/o Natha Singh, near Tarkseal Bhawan,
31.12.2016
Kartar Singh Soraba Nagar, Gali No. 4 Barnala, Age 59
years, Carpenter-4409
8
Satpal s/o Kishan Chand, Ward No. 10, Patel Nagar
30.04.2017
Narwana, Distt. Jind, Age 59 years, Junior Assistant-4489
9
Gurgant Singh s/o Nirjan Singh, Village and P.O. Duggan,
30.04.2013
Distt. Sangrur, Age 62 years, 3667
10
Gurmail Singh s/o Jaggar Singh, Village & P.O. Ubhewal,
31.12.2015
Distt. Sangrur, Age 60 years, 4226
In para 5 of CWP No. 2147 of 2018, the details of release of the payments in respect of each petitioner has been given, which is as under :-
Sr.
Petitioner
Gratuity (Rs.) with
Leave
GPF (Rs.)
Period of late
No.
date of payment
encashment
with date of
payment
(Rs.) with
payment
date of
payment
Y
M
D
1
Varinderpal
200000/- dt. 20.11.2017
578480/-
20000/-
03
11
Singh
754421/- dt. 20.07.2017
dt. 4.12.2017
dt. 23.4.2017
23336/-
dt. 25.7.2017
2
Charanjit
278549/- dt. 16.12.2016
480000/-
26
07
02
Singh
dt. 27.1.2017
3
Karnail
323774/- dt. 19.5.2017
286270/-
169432/-
08
03
01
Singh
dt.
dt. 16.6.2016
16.08.2017
4
Gurcharan
299881/- dt. 8.4.2016
251200/-
200000/-
03
05
01
Singh
dt. 3.5.2016
dt. 2.5.2015
5
Lal Singh
249685/- dt. 30.1.2017
233130/-
524495/-
27
10
00
20000/- dt. 28.7.2017
dt. 4.12.2017
dt. 12.6.2017
6
Kuldeep
814605/- dt. 26.5.2016
493700/-
----
00
01
01
Singh
38247/- dt. 26.5.2016
dt. 30.5.2016
23100/-
dt. 30.5.2014
7
Rajwinder
200000/-
419224/-
127000/-
27
06
00
Singh
551040 dt. 30.11.2016
dt. 4.12.2017
dt. 28.7.2017
8
Satpal
750816/- dt. 1.12.2017
455040/-
527084/-
04
07
00
dt. 4.12.2017
dt.25.10.2017
9
Gurjant
637692/-
386480/-
271701/-
30
10
--
Singh
29667.66
17980/-
dt. 27.3.2014
dt. 6.4.2016
dt. 27.3.2014
10
Gurmail
609065/- dt. 27.5.2016
369130/-
178352
23
04
--
Singh
dt. 31.5.2016
dt. 21.4.2016
In CWP No. 1468 of 2018, there are 17 petitioners. The details and dates of retirement and release of the benefits is as under :-
Sr.
Name of the
Late Payment of Retiral Benefits
No.
petitioners
Date of
Gratuity
Leave
GPF
Revised
Retirement
Encashment
DA
1
Balbir Singh
31.05.2016
29.07.2017
16.08.2017
09.12.2016
16.08.2017
2
Harbhagwan Dass
31.03.2014
08.04.2016
31.05.2016
12.02.2015
14.06.2017
3
Gurtej Singh
31.05.2012
07.02.2015
31.05.2016
07.02.2015
13.02.2015
4
Mit Singh
31.01.2015
08.04.2016
31.05.2016
13.02.2015
08.04.2016
5
Darshan Singh
31.05.2012
10.02.2015
31.05.2016
07.02.2015
6
Budh Ram
28.02.2013
08.04.2016
08.04.2016
07.02.2015
30.05.2016
7
Mohmad Ali
31.03.2014
08.04.2016
31.05.2016
11.02.2015
20.07.2016
8
Nand Lal
31.05.2016
29.07.2017
16.08.2017
26.12.2016
9
Harjit Singh
31.05.2016
29.07.2017
16.08.2017
07.04.2017
10
Balwant Singh
31.03.2016
29.07.2017
16.08.2017
16.12.2016
11
Kaur Chand
29.02.2016
19.05.2017
16.08.2017
30.11.2016
12
Pala Singh
28.02.2011
13.06.2012
13.06.2012
09.01.2015
13
Mithu Singh
31.03.2013
08.04.2016
30.05.2016
05.02.2015
14
Mahabir Kumar
30.04.2016
16.08.2017
16.08.2017
05.12.2016
15
Jarnail Singh
31.05.2016
16.08.2017
29.07.2017
09.12.2016
16
Ram Chander
30.04.2012
10.02.2015
07.02.2015
07.02.2015
17
Sarabjit Singh
31.08.2015
26.05.2016
30.05.2016
11.04.2016
The above averments, which have been made in the writ petitions, have gone un-rebutted as there is no reply, which have been filed by the respondents. Rather, during the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents admitted the above mentioned factual position to be correct.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in releasing of the pensionary benefits, which is clear from the chart reproduced above, the petitioners are entitled for the interest on the said delayed payments in view of the settled principle of law.
Learned counsel for the respondents objects to the prayer by stating that the Corporation was in financial difficulty, therefore, it was very difficult to release the pensionary benefits immediately and, therefore, once the pensionary benefits have already been released, no more burden should be put upon the Corporation for the grant of interest on the said payments.
As per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 468, an amount for which an employee is entitled for, especially, pensionary benefits, if not released within a reasonable time, will carry the interest as well. The relevant portion of the 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 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 the 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."
Not only this, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that once the amount has been retained by the department, the department is liable to pay the interest on the said retained amount. The relevant portion 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 (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."
In view of the above, it can be safely said that once the amount was released by the respondents after an inordinate and unexplained delay, the petitioners become entitled for the interest.
The only objection which has been taken by the counsel for the respondents is the financial difficulties, which the Corporation was facing due to which there was a delay. The said ground is not a valid ground in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Karan Vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, 2005(3) PLR 580, wherein the financial difficulty has to be held as not a valid ground to retain the pensionary benefits. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"6... Much was argued on behalf of the Union and the Wakf Boards that their financial position was not such that they can meet the obligations of paying the Imams as they arc being paid in the State of Punjab. It was also argued that the number of mosques is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure which the Boards of different States would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above the fundamental right of a citizen. If the Boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervising and administering the Wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose for which it is created."
In view of the above, as there is no justifiable reason with the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits and the only ground given of the financial crisis is not a valid ground to withhold the benefits, the petitioners are held entitled for interest on the delayed payments @ 9% per annum from the date it became due till the same was released to them. Let the calculation of the interest be done by the respondent-Corporation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the amount so calculated by the respondents shall be released to the petitioner(s) within a period of one month thereafter.
The writ petitions stand allowed in above terms.