AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed for issuance of directions to respondents to release full regular pension, and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its accrual till the date of actual payment, with a further direction upon respondent No.2 to refund the illegally recovered amount of Rs.2,35,389/-along with interest @ 18% p.a.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner retired as a District Education Officer (Secondary Education), on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, the leave encashment was paid on 11.07.2023, and the gratuity was paid on 07.03.2024 whereas, the pension was commuted only on 07.03.2024, and arrears of adhoc pension was also released on 07.03.2024, whereas the regular pension was granted from 07.03.2024. It is submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting his retiral documents, rather on account of inter se departmental correspondence, the retiral dues were paid after much delay.
The second argument raised before this Court that the recovery of Rs.2,35,389/-which was effected from the petitioner, is without passing any order, or serving a show cause notice, therefore, the same is per se illegal.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the pension case of the petitioner was submitted with the Accountant General of Punjab, however, the same was returned due to some objections, i.e. two annual promotions were granted to the petitioner on 01.02.2015, and therefore, on account of non-approval of case of the petitioner by the Accountant General, the provisional pension for one year was issued by the Head office vide order dated 24.04.2023, and sanction of provisional pension for the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023 was issued in due course. Reference was also made to the letter of the petitioner dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure R-1), in order to justify the recovery effected from the present petitioner. The detail of the payments made to the petitioner as per record is also described in the written statement. The relevant is extracted hereinafter:
“i)G.P.F. amounting to Rs.52,874/- on 09.12.2021.
ii) G.I.S. amounting to Rs.5,18,286/- on 30.11.2021.
iii) Leave Encashment of Rs. 12,20,883/- on 11.07.2023.
iv) Provisional pension for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022 released vide Letter No.2021395254, dated 22.12.2021 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.
v)Provisional pension for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 30.09.2022 released vide Letter No.2022126222, dated 25.05.2022 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.
vi) Provisional pension for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2022 to 31.03.2023 released vide Letter No.2023117965-68, dated 26.04.2023 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.
vii) Provisional pension for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2023 to 30.06.2023 released vide Letter No.2023186684, dated 07.07.2023 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.
viii) Leave Encashment released vide Letter No.2023149679-82, dated 31.05.2023 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.
ix) Pension case sent to District Treasury, Ferozepur vide Letter No.E-4/Pension/2023232011, dated 18.08.2023 by the undersigned, in pursuance of Letter No.PEN03/ Intimation/21-22/PE/23/10/80578504, dated 27th of June, 2023 of A.G. Punjab and Letter bearing Memo No.E-File 187485/Services-3(6)202319563, dated 13th of July, 2023 of D.P.I. (S.E.), Punjab.”
The other cause for delayed payment, as spell out by the respondent-department is that in Form Pension-10 of the petitioner, the date of retirement was shown as 30.06.2023 by respondent No.4, whereas, the actual date of retirement of the petitioner was 30.09.2021, and on this account, the delay has occurred.
This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, and has perused the case file, and find that there is a sufficient delay in releasing the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. There is no delay on the part of the petitioner in submission of her retiral documents, it is the act and conduct of the respondent-department, who after the retirement of the petitioner indulged in inter se departmental correspondence.
Since now, the retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner, after a period of considerable delay, the petitioner is held entitled for the interest, by virtue of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in ‘A.S. Randhawa versus State of Punjab’ 1997 (3) SCT 468, and a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘J.S. Cheema versus State of Haryana’ 2014(13) R.C.R. (Civil) 355.
Furthermore, similar issue has already been examined by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-602-2023, titled ‘Hira Lal Karakara versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 09.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinafter :-
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2022 and since the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released after a considerable delay, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the same in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.
5.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that since the whole amount of retiral dues has already been paid to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.
xxx xxx xxx
7.Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement. Moreover, a perusal of reply filed by the respondent No.2 shows that although the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released, however, the same have been released after a considerable delay and no explanation has been furnished for not releasing the same at the time of retirement or within a reasonable time thereafter.
8.A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others : 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 said 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 retiree 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.”
Apart from this, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in ‘J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana’ 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355, 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: -
“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.”
10.In view of the above factual position and settled principles of law, the present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, on the delayed payment of retiral dues w.e.f. 01.01.2023 (after two months of his retirement) till the actual date of payment, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
Thereupon in view of the above mentioned law laid down, the petitioner is entitled to the interest @ 6% for delay on each respective heads, and therefore, the petition in this regard is allowed, and the petitioner is held entitled for the relief asked for. The respondent is directed to carry out necessary calculations, and forthwith release the pensionary benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case of any further delay, the petitioner would further entitle for delayed interest @ 9%. So far as the issue regarding recovery is concerned, though the petitioner has herself given an undertaking for effecting a recovery. The submission made before this Court that the letter was issued under duress, and that too, after the retirement, therefore, no recovery can be effected, but clearly decipher from the record that before effecting recovery, no show cause notice was ever served to the petitioner, so, therefore, the act of effecting recovery is also not legally sustainable, and is accordingly set aside, however, the liberty is extended to the respondent in case the recovery is not effected from the petitioner, they may serve show cause notice, and thereupon, after giving due opportunity of hearing to her, can pass a speaking order with regard to the recovery. In case, the authority comes to a conclusion that no recovery can be effected from the petitioner, the recovery made from the petitioner, shall be forthwith remitted back to the petitioner without any further delay.
Disposed of accordingly, it goes without saying that the above said exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.