Vir Davinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Namit Kumar, J

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payments of pension and other pensionary benefits from the due date till the actual date of payment.

Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 22.01.1982 on adhoc basis and his services were regularized on 01.04.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Kanungo on 28.10.1998, however, he was reverted on 29.10.2002 on his own request on medical grounds. Thereafter, he was again promoted as Kanungo on 21.08.2015 and retired as such on 31.07.2018, on attaining the age of superannuation. After the retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) for fixation of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.10.2002 and passed an order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) to recover the excess amount of Rs.1,70,985/- from the leave encashment of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the abovesaid orders, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No.26780 of 2018 (Vir Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) and vide order dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court, the recovery from the petitioner, on the basis of impugned order dated 05.09.2018 was stayed. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) by holding that no recovery from the petitioner can be made and direction was issued to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner, within a period of next three months, positively. After the said decision, an amount of leave encashment of Rs.5,16,180/- has been released to be petitioner on 23.08.2023, without any interest on the delayed payments. Thereafter, the petitioner served a notice dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) to the respondents for releasing the interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation and after his retirement, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 04.09.2018 for re-fixation of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.10.2002 and passed an order dated 05.09.2018 to recover the excess amount of Rs.1,70,985/- from the leave encashment of the petitioner. Despite the fact that the said order of recovery was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 17.10.2018 passed in CWP No.26780 of 2018, the respondents had unnecessary withheld the amount of leave encashment of the petitioner and after the decision of said writ petition, the respondents had released the leave encashment amount of Rs.5,16,180/- to the petitioner on 23.08.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than 05 years.

Since the said leave encashment amount was released after a considerable delay, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the same.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the separate replies filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, has vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant documents.

In reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, no plausible explanation has been given for delayed payment of leave encashment to the petitioner and in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it has been stated as under :-

“xx                                                                                           xx                                                               xx                                   xx                         xx

Due to heavy receipt of 6th Punjab Pay Commission revision cases it took time to finalized the revised pension case of the petitioner in routine, it is bonafide. There is no intentional delay on the part of Answering Respondent. As of now, no action is pending on the part of office of Answering Respondent.

That the matter regarding payment of leave encashment does not pertain to office of Answering Respondent, therefore, the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present suit against the office of the Answering Respondent.”

Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.07.2018 and no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner before or after his retirement, therefore, he was entitled for the release of his retiral benefits immediately. Although, after the retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.3, passed an order dated 04.09.2018 for fixation of pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.10.2002 and passed an order dated 05.09.2018 to recover the excess amount of Rs.1,70,985/- from the leave encashment of the petitioner, however, the said recovery was stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2018 passed in CWP No.26780 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 by holding that no recovery can be made from the petitioner and with a direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of next three months, positively. After the said decision, leave encashment amounting to Rs.5,16,180/-has been released to the petitioner on 23.08.2023 i.e. after the delay of more than 05 years from his retirement. Since there is a considerable delay in releasing the leave encashment amount to the petitioner, therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the same as per settled principles of law.

A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-

“8. 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 his 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. xx xx xx xx”

Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court had held that an employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under: -

“5. xx xx xx xx 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 factual position and settled principles of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 7% per annum to the petitioner, on the delayed payment of leave encashment amount of Rs.5,16,180/-, w.e.f. 01.11.2018 (i.e. after three months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.