AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-8584-CWP-2025
Prayer in the instant application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for placing on record short written statement along with Annexure R-1 filed on behalf of the respondent. Allowed as prayed for.
CWP-20792-2023
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to release the family pension to the petitioner as well as arrears of family pension, along with interest @ 12% per annum.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, namely Sh. Palwinder Singh Samra, was working in the respondent-Bank as Manager and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation. Unfortunately he died on 23.05.2021. After his death, the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank for release of the family pension. However, the respondent-Bank did not release the same on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent-Bank and certain liabilities remained outstanding against him. He further submits that although, during the pendency of the instant petition, the respondent-Bank has released the family pension along with the arrears thereof, however, no interest on the delayed payment has been paid. He further submits that since there is a considerable delay in releasing the family pension and the arrears thereof, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the said benefits.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the averments made in the written statement, submits that prior to his death, the husband of the petitioner had availed certain loan from the respondent-Bank, which remained outstanding, and the petitioner had committed default in making the due payment towards the said loan liability. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank instituted proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh against the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee for recovery of the outstanding loan amount which is still pending adjudication. He further submits that since the respondent-Bank had already approved the pension payment order in favour of the petitioner, and an amount of Rs.10,53,608.32 qua arrears of family pension had been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner on 07.11.2023, therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant documents.
Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner unfortunately died on 23.05.2021, whereas an amount of Rs.10,53,608.32 towards arrears of family pension was credited to the petitioner’s bank account on 07.11.2023 and thereafter, the regular family pension has been paid to the petitioner. Thus, the family pension and arrears thereof were released to the petitioner after a delay of more than two years and five months from the date of death of her husband. Although, before his death, the husband of the petitioner had taken loan from the respondent-bank which remained outstanding at the time of his death, however, the respondent-Bank had already availed the appropriate remedy for recovery of the said loan amount by instituting proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh, which are still pending adjudication. In view thereof, the respondent-Bank ought not to have withheld the family pension payable to the petitioner. Since there is a considerable delay in releasing the family pension as well as arrears of family pension, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of the said benefits.
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 has 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 laying 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 respondent-Bank to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment of family pension as well as arrears of family pension w.e.f. 24.07.2021 (i.e. after two months from the date of death of husband of the petitioner) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.