Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

Mahesh Grover, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits.

The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2005. During his tenure of service, he faced criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which he was discharged by the learned trial Court on 17.1.1997. The respondents went up in revision before this Court which was decided on 23.1.2008 upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court. The petitioner was also similarly charge-sheeted by the department in the year 1999 and the petitioner had submitted his reply promptly to the said charge. On the request of the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed on 15.1.2008 and the enquiry was concluded on 7.3.2008. On 3.4.2008, his retiral benefits were released.

The petitioner contends that there is a delay in release of these benefits, as he retired in 2005 and the respondent/department had not completed their departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the enquiry officer was appointed only on 15.1.2008 on his request.

The respondents contend with reference to Rule 9.15.(i)(c) that only the amount of gratuity has been withheld on the premise that proceeding were pending against the petitioner and had not been concluded. Rule 9.15(i)(c) is extracted here below :-

9.15(i)(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government employee until the conclusion of the department or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.

Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in R.S.Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others 1997(3) R.S.J. 318 and a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. 2000(4) S.C.T. 267.

The Full Bench of this Court in R.S.Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others (supra) has held that a writ for retiral benefits including interest is maintainable and that the pensionary benefits, if released after a delay, entitles the incumbent interest at the rate of 12% extendable upto 18%.

Likewise, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (supra) has held that in case of delay of payment, interest has to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues, in case there is no reason or justification for not making payment.

There possibly cannot be any dispute with the proposition as propounded in the aforesaid judgments, but the fact that has to be seen, is as to whether there was justification in withholding the amount of retiral dues and if there is some justification, then in the opinion of this Court, interest cannot be paid. Rule 9.15(i)(c) lays down that in case there are disciplinary or judicial proceedings which have not assumed finality and the incumbent is involved in the same, then the gratuity should not be paid.

If the facts of the present case are to be seen, it is not disputed that the petitioner was discharged by the learned trial Court in the year 1997 which order was challenged by the respondents in revision which were determined in January, 2008. Therefore, the interpretation based by the respondents of Rule 9.15 (i)(c) to say that judicial proceedings were pending, cannot ipso facto be termed to be erroneous. The mere fact that the enquiry officer was appointed belatedly, cannot make any difference to the case of the petitioner because of the aforesaid interpretation placed by the respondents. It is to be noticed that after the decision of the revision in January, 2008, the benefits were released to the petitioner on 3.4.2008 which is fairly prompt and for this reason this Court feels that the delay which has been caused on account of an impression of the respondents that the judicial proceedings were pending, per-se cannot be termed to be erroneous.

The petition, therefore, is held to be without any merit and is dismissed.