Balraj Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on account of delay in payment of pensionary benefits.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent Board as Senior Assistant on 1.3.1977. Petitioner retired from service as Divisional Accountant on 31.3.2009. After retirement of the petitioner from service, respondent No. 4 served notice on the petitioner dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) with regard to payment of Rs. 20,000/- wrongly made by him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. Petitioner received another letter dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), wherein, it was alleged that he had further made payments of Rs. 910/-, Rs. 916/- and Rs. 937/- to the contractor and had also prepared the receipt to the tune of Rs. 875/-. The said letter was duly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was also inquired by the police. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- was got re-deposited. Therefore, it was reported by the police that no action was liable to be taken against the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer also wrote to the Managing Director vide letter dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) that no financial loss was caused to the department. However, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on the allegations of embezzlement. The inquiry officer submitted his report. Since the petitioner was not released his retiral benefits, he filed CWP No. 19937 of 2010. The said petition was disposed of as during the pendency of the petition, the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner. However, so far as the claim of interest on delayed payment was concerned, respondents were directed to dispose of the representation moved by the petitioner in this regard. The representation moved by the petitioner Annexure P-8 was rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-10. Petitioner again submitted a detailed representation Annexure P-11 but the same was declined vide Annexure P-12. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to receive interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits. Petitioner had retired from service in the year 2009, whereas, the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner after a gap of 2 1/2 years. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to receive interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the delay in release of retiral benefits to the petitioner occurred as there were serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to forgery of certain receipts etc. In fact, the matter was also referred to the police and petitioner moved an application that the mistake had been committed by him and sought forgiveness.

In the present case, the controversy involved is short. Petitioner is seeking interest on account of delay in payment of his retiral benefits. However, in the present case, the delay in release of retiral benefits to the petitioner cannot be said to be mala fide or deliberate. In fact there were allegations of forgery/embezzlement against the petitioner. The matter was also referred to the police. Petitioner deposited Rs. 20,000/- and prayed that he be forgiven. Chargesheet was also issued to the petitioner. Ultimately no action was taken against the petitioner as he had deposited the amount in question and had already retired from service.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is not entitled to claim interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.