AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present application has been filed to place on record replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.
Application is allowed and replication is taken on record.
In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits for which the petitioner was entitled for after his retirement, were released after undue delay for which the petitioner is entitled for interest keeping in view the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 468.
The facts as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioner retired as a Taxation Inspector on 31.12.2007. Before the petitioner was to superannaute, two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 67 dated 22.11.2005, under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and FIR No. 9 dated 19.02.2005, under Section 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were registered against the petitioner. Petitioner was acquitted in the FIR No. 67 dated 22.11.2005 on 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) by the Competent Court of Law and was also acquitted in the other FIR No. 9 dated 19.02.2005 by the Competent Court of Law on 14.01.2011 (Annexure P-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after November, 2011, there was no valid justification with the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits as there was no impediment in the release of the same as there was no other proceeding pending against the petitioner, which would entitle the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits. In paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition, petitioner has given the details of the payment which were released to the petitioner in respect of the pensionary benefits. On the basis of the averments made therein, counsel for the petitioner argues that the payment for which the petitioner was entitled for after his acquittal from the criminal case pending against him in November, 2011, were released after undue delay and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the interest on the said delayed payment.
Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed the reply. In the reply, the factum of the pendency of two FIRs have been admitted and also the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by the Competent Court of Law in respect of those FIRs by November, 2011. The justification given for the release of the benefits starting from the year 2013 onwards is that after the acquittal of the petitioner, his case for the grant of pensionary benefits was processed and the same were released after the due process was over and the time taken is only keeping in view the process required for releasing the pensionary benefits. The request of the petitioner for the grant of interest on the delayed payment is being contested by learned counsel for the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
It is a matter of fact that when the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2007, there were two criminal cases pending against him. Thereafter, these two criminal cases came to an end and the petitioner was acquitted in both of them by 28.11.2011. The respondents were well justified in withholding certain pensionary benefits during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and, therefore, withholding of those benefits by the respondents during the pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be held to be unjustified.
Once the petitioner got acquitted of the criminal proceedings in respect of both the FIRs and there were no other proceedings pending against the petitioner after 28.11.2011, there was no justification with the respondents still not to make the payment to the petitioner in respect of the retiral benefits, for which he has become entitled after his superannuation on 31.12.2017 in a reasonable time.
In reply to para 5, the respondents have admitted the dates on which the actual payments were released. From the date given therein, it is seen that the payments were made to the petitioner starting from March, 2013 till May, 2014. No valid justification has been given for the delay of more than two and half years in releasing the pensionary benefits after criminal proceedings came to an end. Once there were no proceedings pending against the petitioner, respondents were justified in withholding of the pensionary benefits. The chart reproduced by the respondents themselves in the reply in para 5 is as under:-
"5. The contents of para no. 5 are wrong and denied. The pension and retiral benefits were paid well within time after adopting due procedure, the details of the same are given as under:-
Payment
Applied
sent to
sanctioned
Bill no.
Voucher
Amount
by
competent
by
and date
No.
paid
petitioner
authority
competent
authority
GPF Final
18.03.2008
Letter
No.
ETC,
233/02.12.
43
of
2,36,387/-
payment
435
dated
Punjab
2008
02.01.2009
18.03.2008
GPF-1-
08/1450-53
dated
17.10.2008
GPF
Self-
Letter
No.
ETC,
9/02.05.20
89
of
26,799/-
Missing
declaration
1758 dated
Punjab
13
21.05.2014
Credit
for
12.10.2009
GPF-1-
payment
12/1978-81
given on
dated
19.04.2012
12.04.2012
Interest of
-------------
-------------
ETC,
169/18.12.
2
of
9728/-
GPF
Punjab
2013
04.02.2014
Missing
GPF-1-
Credit
13/41218
dated
03.12.2013
GIS
27.01.2011
-------------
Aetc ropar,
291/28.02.
43
of
18910/-
letter
no.
2011
31.03.2011
299-302
dated
28.02.2011
Leave
05.10.2012
Duty
AETC
161/
159
of
2,39,800/-
encashment
period was
Ropar
No.
20.11.2012
22.02.2014
considered
3728-31
by Letter
Dated
No.
ETC,
09.11.2012
Punjab
Patiala
NG-3-
12/5986-88
Dated
19.9.2012
Gratuity
AETC
AG Punjab
209/12.02.
179
of
3,71,690/-
Ropar
No.
Chandigarh
2013
31.03.2013
2648 Dated
vide
letter
09.04.2012
no.
PEN-
01/218121
7994/2013-
14/800248
33
dated
05/10/12
23.01.2013
Arrear
of
----------
---------
ETC.
13/23.04.2
9
of
48,849/-
revised
pay
Punjab
013
20.05.2013
scale
Patiala/Ng-
2-
2013/DP01
034030730
60
dated
13.12.2013
-----------
-----------
ETC.
43/07.06.2
18
of
2,43,771/-
Punjab
013
30.11.2013
Patiala/Ng-
2-
2013/DP01
034030730
60
dated
13.12.2013
------------
------------
ETC.
170/19.12.
6
of
20,935/-
Punjab
2013
25.01.2014
Patiala/Ng-
2-
2013/DP01
034030730
60
dated
13.12.2013
ACP Arrear
aetc,
ropar
ETC.
186/31.01.
4
of
94,632/-
letter
no.
Punjab
2014
03.02.2014
10613
Patiala/Ng-
dated
2-
06.11.2013
2013/DP01
034030730
60
dated
11/04/13
13.12.2013
Arrear
of
----------
Aetc,
AG Punjab
189/5.2.20
8
of
73794/-
revised
Ropar
Chandigarh
14
07.02.2014
DCRG
letter
no.
vide
letter
10877
no.
PEN-
dated
01/218121
09.01.2014
7994/2013-
14/PE/14/1
5/8004688
1
dated
31.01.2014
Arrear
of
-----------
-----------
AETC
184/22.01.
3
of
30,190/-
revised
Ropar
2014
04.02.2014
leave
10971-74
encashment
dated
05.02.2014
It is also wrong and denied that the respondents admitted the facts but no subsequent actions were taken in this regards. All the benefits were paid well in time after adopting proper procedure."
From the perusal of above reproduction, it can be very well said that the only ground being taken by the respondents to justify the delayed payment is that the same was procedural delay and not intentional, which is incorrect.
A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa's case (supra) has held that the retiral benefits are to be released to an employee immediately after his retirement or within a maximum period of 2 to 3 months. In case, payments are not released within the said period, an employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant portion of the 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."
In the present case, respondents have taken more than two months after November, 2011 when the proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal case had come to an end. Therefore, the delay which has occurred in releasing the pensionary benefits cannot be said as procedural in view of the settled principle of law, where maximum time given to release the pensionary benefits is two to three months.
Hence, petitioner is held entitled of interest on the payments starting from 01.03.2012 onwards as proceedings in the criminal Court came to an end in November, 2011 and by granting three months time to release the pensionary benefits, interest is being granted from 01.03.2012 till the same were released @ 9% per annum. Let calculation of interest be carried out by the respondents within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount so calculated shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.
Writ petition stands allowed of in above terms.