AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of 12% interest per annum to the petitioners on the delayed payment of gratuity amounting Rs. 8,16,500/- and delayed payment of GPO, w.e.f. the due date till the date of actual payment, keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners were appointed as Conductors on contract basis through the Employment Exchange with the Respondent-Department in the year 1993. Vide order dated 01.04.1998, services of the petitioners were regularized as Conductor. However, subsequently, the said orders of regularization were withdrawn by the Department vide orders dated 08.08.2002 and 02.09.2002 respectively; and recovery orders were also issued against the petitioners. Consequently, petitioner No. 1 had filed CWP No. 14542 of 2002;and petitioner No. 2 had filed CWP No. 14680 of 2002 before this Court challenging the said orders of withdrawal of regularization. Vide interim orders dated 10.09.2002 and 11.09.2002 respectively, the said impugned orders were stayed by this Court.
Subsequently, the petitioners were ordered to be regularized vide order dated 17.12.2002 subject to final outcome of their respective writ petitions.
It is submitted that both the petitioners have retired on 31.01.2023 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) as Sub Inspector after attaining the age of superannuation. Whereupon Petitioner No. 1 was issued provisional pension order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-3) and petitioner No. 2 on 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) regarding release of provisional pension, but their amount of gratuity was withheld by the Department.
Subsequently, vide judgment dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), both the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed and respondents were directed to release the benefits to the petitioners by treating them as regular employees w.e.f. 01.04.1998, within 8 weeks.
However, as no action was taken by the respondents even after lapse of 8 weeks, petitioners had served notice of contempt to the respondents on 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-6 and P-7 respectively), regarding compliance of judgment dated 21.09.2023. Subsequently, vide orders dated 30.08.2024 (Annexures P-8 and P-9 respectively), the General Manager, Haryana State Transport, Karnal/respondent No. 3 ordered to grant all dues due to the petitioners after retirement.Pursuant thereto, revised pension payment orders dated 01.10.2024 and 03.10.2024 (Annexures P--10 and P-11 respectively) were issued in favour of the petitioners. Even payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 8,16,500/- each was received in the accounts of both the petitioners on 25.10.2024, as evident from bank statements dated Nil (Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively).
Ld. counsel submits that however, the respondents had been directed vide order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) to release all benefits payable to the petitioners within a period of 8 weeks, whereas the said benefits have been released to the petitioners after almost one year, therefore, petitioners are entitled to interest upon the delayed payment of benefits. Accordingly, petitioners had submitted representations dated 06.11.2024 (Annexures P-14 and P-15 respectively) to respondent No. 3 regarding grant of 12% interest on delayed payment.
Petitioners had even served legal notice dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-16) to the Respondent Department. However, vide letter dated
05.03.2025 (Annexure P-18), petitioners were informed that no delay had been caused by the respondents.
Ld. counsel submits that the said contention of the respondents is incorrect, as it is undisputed and crystal clear that vide order of this Court dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), respondents were required to release the benefits to the petitioners within 8 weeks. Admittedly, the said benefits have been released to the petitioners only after approximately one year. As such, petitioners are entitled to interest upon the delayed payment.
It is submitted that the petitioners retired on 31.01.2023 and even this Court vide Judgment dated 21.09.2023 (P-5) has directed the respondents to release the benefits for which petitioners are entitled after their retirement within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order and the certified copies were supplied to the respondents on 05.10.2023, whereas Gratuity Amounting Rs. 8,16,500/- each were credited in their account on 25.10.2024 and Payment of GPO was made on 25.02.2025. So, the petitioners are very also entitled for grant of 12% interest on delayed payment of gratuity and GPO, in view of Judgment passed by this Court in J.S. Cheema v/s State of Haryana [2014(1) S.C.T. 782] decided on 20.11.2013; and Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in A.S. Randhawa v/s State of Punjab (P&H) (F.B.):Law Finder Doc ID # 20085 [1997 (3) SCT 468]; relevant para 14 of which is as follows: –
“14.In State of Punjab v. Jarnail Singh, Letters Patent Appeal 1511 of 1989 decided on November 20, 1989 the writ petitioners were working as Surveyors on ad hoc basis when their services were terminated. They challenged their order of termination in this court and the writ petitions were dismissed. The matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court which was allowed and the order terminating the services quashed and they were directed to be re-instated. In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court the State Government re-instated the writ petitioners and also paid them back wages. Their claim for regularisation of their services was not favourably considered by the State which prompted them to file the writ petition out of which the letters patent appeal had arisen. They also made a prayer that they be allowed interest @ 12% on the arrears which had been paid to them. This claim was allowed by a learned Single Judge and in appeal the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench set aside that part of the order whereby interest was allowed to them on delayed payment of arrears of pay. The question that was considered by the learned Judges was whether a writ petition could be filed for claiming interest on back wages when no such interest was allowed while allowing the back wages but were paid as a consequence of the order of termination being set aside. It was observed that under those circumstances neither under the law nor in equity the petitioners therein were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming interest on the amount of back wages paid by State itself without there being any direction in this behalf by the Supreme Court. The learned Judges noticed Des
Raj Pahwa's case (supra) but distinguished it on the ground that it related to non-payment of pension and salary. Similarly, other cases in which interest had been granted on account of non-payment of pension in time were distinguished by the Judges. In our opinion, the judgment in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) is distinguishable and is no authority for the proposition that interest cannot be claimed on delayed payments of pensionary benefits in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) the claim was for interest on non-payment of salary in time which arose on account of contractual obligations. Jarnail Singh's case does not, therefore, advance the case of the respondents.”
It is submitted that therefore, the action of the respondents by not granting 12% interest per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity amounting Rs. 8,16,500/- and delayed payment of GPO, as per the settled law, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Rules, and Law laid down by the Courts.
Accordingly prays that the present writ petition be allowed and directions be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of 12% interest per annum to the petitioners on the delayed payment of gratuity amounting Rs. 8,16,500/- and delayed payment of GPO, w.e.f. the due date till the date of actual payment, keeping in view peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions of the petitioners and has reiterated the stand of the respondents that there has been no delay caused by the Respondent-Department. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
Vide order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5), the previous writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 8.8.2002 and 02.09.2002 respectively, whereby regularisation orders of the petitioners were withdrawn, were disposed of by Coordinate Bench in the following manner: -
“That being the factual position coupled with the fact that petitioner(s) have already retired from service and while in service, they had been granted all the benefit by treating them as a regular employee from 01.04.1998, withdrawing the said benefit now so as to treat them as temporary employee, will be too harsh, especially when the petitioners have rendered more than two and half decades of service and the employees juniors to them have already been regularized in service. The question of law is kept open but all intents and purposes, as the petitioner(s) have already retired, the impugned order dated 08.08.2002 will not be given effect so as to treat the petitioner(s) as de-regularized. Let the benefits for which the petitioner(s) are entitled after their retirement be released by
treating them as regular employees from 01.04.1998 onwards within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order, if not already paid.”
(Emphasis added)
A bare reading of the above shows that even at the time of disposal of the previous writ petitions, petitioners had already retired from service.It is for this reason that the order dated 8.8.2002 and 02.09.2002 were never examined on merits, and the question of law was kept open, and it was directed that petitioners be treated as regular employees; and their retiral benefits be released within eight weeks.
The respondents No. 1 to 4 in their written statement dated 10.09.2025 have enumerated the sequence of events after receipt of order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-5) in the following manner:-
“6…………. The matter was considered by the office of Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to Govt. Haryana and it was opined vide their letter no. 4709-10/CO 238-39/1/2024 dated 23.02.2024 that these are not fit cases for filing appeal (LPA). A copy of the letter dated 23.02.2024 is annexed as ANNEXURE 'R-1'. Thereafter letter No. 535/ECC dated 23.04.2024 and letter No. 1008/ECC dated 09.08.2024 were written to the respondent no. 2 whereby advice was sought either to implement the order dated 21.09.2023 or to file any appeal in the matter. However, the required advice was not received. A copy of letter dated 23.04.2024 is annexed as
ANNEXURE 'R-2' and its true English translation is annexed as ANNEXURE 'R-2/T'. Copy of letter dated 09.08.2024 is annexed as ANNEXURE 'R-3' and its true English translation is annexed as ANNEXURE 'R-3/T.
7.That thereafter in order to avoid further contemptuous proceedings, the respondent no. 3 passed order No. 5725/ECC dated 30.08.2024 vide which services of the petitioner no. 1 has been treated as regular from 01.04.1998 and it has been ordered to release all the benefits due to petitioner no.1 after his retirement. Accordingly sanction was issued by the office of Principal Account General Haryana vide letter dated 01.10.2024 vide which a sum of Rs. 8,16,500/- was sanctioned as DCRG in favour of the petitioner no.1. Thereafter revised DCRG amounting to Rs. 8,81,820/- has also been sanctioned vide Principal Account General Haryana letter dated 25.02.2025.
8.That it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh while deciding CWP No. 14542 of 2002 and CWP no. 14680 of 2002 has not allowed any interest to the petitioners on the retirement benefits. Hence, there was no delay on the part of the answering respondent, the delay if any was procedural not intentional.
9.That similarly the facts of the petitioner no. 2 are on the same footing and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. However, the petitioner no. 2 has challenged his de-regularization order No. 3760/ECC dated 02.09.2002 by way of filing CWP No. 14680 of 2002. The Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh stayed the order dated 02.09.2002 vide interim order dated 11.09.2002. Therefore the services of the petitioner no. 2 were regularized vide order No. 5331/ECC dated 17.12.2002 subject to the final decision of CWP No.14680 of 2002. Both the civil writ petitions (CWP No. 14542 of 2002 and CWP No. 14680 of 2002) have been decided vide common order dated 21-09-2023 as detailed above.
In view of the above facts and circumstances explained above present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground.”
No replication has been filed by the petitioners controverting or disputing the aforesaid stand of the respondent State. From the above averments it is clear that respondent have not caused any deliberate or unnecessary delay in the matter. Immediately upon passing of order dated 21.9.2023, respondents had initiated process for grant of retiral benefits to the petitioners. Needless to say, the entire exercise is time-consuming, and procedural requirements have to be mandatorily complied with. Moreover, there is no direction in the order dated 21.9.2023 for grant of interest.
Further, reliance of the petitioners upon judgment in A.S. Randhawa (Supra) is misconceived, as the said judgment is distinguishable because the argument of the ld. State counsel is not that the present civil writ petition is not maintainable. Rather, the stand of the ld. State counsel is that there is no delay caused on account of the respondents for the reasons enumerated hereinabove; and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to interest.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.