Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This is a petition for directing the respondents to release the balance amount of G.P.F. along with interest at Sine rate of 18% per annum, to commute the pension of the petitioner and also to count the service rendered by the petitioner in the employment of the District Board for the purpose of retiral benefits.

Facts which are necessary to be noticed for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner are that the petitioner served as Master in the District Board Primary School, Bhaini Sidhwan, Block Jandiala, District Amritsar from 6.5.1955 to 30.9.1957. With effect from 1.10.1957, he joined government service and retired on 30.6.1990 on attaining the age of superannuation. He applied for commutation of pension by making an application to the respondent No. 4 on 4.6.1991. After about two months and 20 days, the Accountant General, Punjab informed the Head Master of the school that due to expiry of one year''s period from the date of his retirement the petitioner be asked to apply for commutation of pension in form Pension -12-A alongwith the medical certificate. After having come to know of this communication, the petitioner took steps to apply for commutation of pension.

In the meantime, the Director, Education Department, Punjab passed order dated 18.4.1991 authorising the Head Master, Government School, Bundala, District Amritsar to withdraw Rs. 41637/- standing in the name of the petitioner towards the G.P.F. The Directof also called upon the Head Master to supply the details of missing credits for the months of February, 1977, February, 1986 and December, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that by withholding the amount of G.P.F., the respondents have deprived him of his property and, therefore, he is entitled to be paid interest on the amount of G.P.F. He has also claimed that the respondents should have counted the service rendered by him as Master in the primary school managed by the District Board and his case for commutation of pension should have been decided because he had applied much before the expiry of limitation of one year.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar (Civil suit No. 82 of 1992) to restrain the respondents from recovering an amount of Rs. 30972/- and, therefore, no relief should be given to him in the writ petition. They have also stated that after deducting the amount of Rs. 30972/- which is recoverable from the petitioner towards the house rent allowance, L.T.C. and over payment of salary, a sum of Rs. 41637/- was credited to the account of the petitioner on 29.8.1991. The balance amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner vide bank draft dated 16.1.1992 and the pension has also been released vide PPO No. 179 dated 20.6.1991. These respondents have also pleaded that the petitioner had applied for commutation of pension on 9.7.1991 and the same was refused.

In a separate reply filed by the respondent No. 3, it has been stated that the application of the petitioner for commutation of pension without medical certificate was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. 207 dated 9.7.1991 i.e. after expiry of one year''s period counted from the date of retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, the same was not entertained. The respondent No. 3 has pleaded that the department had recommended the counting of service rendered by the petitioner only from 1.10.1957 and, therefore, his pension was calculated by taking into consideration the service rendered by him w.e.f. 1.10.1957.

The first contention urged by Shri R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the delayed payment of gratuity, for the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest at the rate of 18% because by withholding the payment of the amount due to the petitioner, the respondents No, 1,2 aad 4 will be deemed to have deprived him of his property right. He also argued that on the amount of G.P.F. also the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% because there was no reason for the respondents to have delayed the payment of Rs. 41637/-. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the payment of G.P.F. was delayed because of the pendency of the civil suit and the amount of pension was released to the petitioner immediately after receipt of sanction from the Accountant General, Punjab. She, however, conceded that the petitioner is not to be blamed for the delayed payment of G.P.F., pension and gratuity.

In my opinion, Shri Bajaj is right in contending that for delayed payment of the G.P.F., pension and gratuity, the petitioner is entitled to interest. In Devi Nanand Parsad v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1401; State of Kerala v. M. Padnabhan Nair AIR 1985 SC 385; State of Punjab v. K.R. Eerry and Subhag Rai 1972 S.L.R. 836; and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh, , it has been held that pension and gratuity can no longer be treated as bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement but the same constitute valuable rights and property in the hands of the employees and for delayed payment the employee concerned is entitled to interest. The same very view has been reiterated in Surender Kumar Mehta v. State of Haryuna 1995(1) RSJ 585, Maha Singh Singhmar v. State of Haryana 1995(1) RSJ 643 and a recent decision of Division Bench in C.W.P No. 4449 of 1995 ''O.P. Jerawal and Ors. v. State of Punjab, decided on 17.5.1996.

In view of the aforementioned decisions, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment of G.P.F., gratuity and pension.

The second contention urged by Shri Bajaj is that the petitioner is entitled to the counting of service rendered by him as Master in the District Board Primary School. Shri Bajaj argued that the service rendered by the petitioner from 6.5.1955 to 30.9.1957 ought to have been counted because the Board''s primary school was taken over by the government. In my opinion, this contention of Shri Bajaj merits acceptance. There is no denying that the petitioner had joined government service on 1.10.1957 in continuance of the service rendered by him in the District Board Primary School. Therefore, there does not appear to be any justification why the service rendered by him in the District Board Primary School should not be counted for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits.

The third contention of Shri Bajaj relates to the payment of commuted pension. He argued that the petitioner had submitted application for commutation of pension on 4.6.1990 i.e. 26 days before his superannuation and if the respondent No. 4 delayed the finalisation of commutation of pension the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the fault of the said respondent. Learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the petitioner is not entitled to claim commutation of pension without fulfilling the conditions specified in Rule 11.12B(2)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. She argued that the application of the petitioner was received by the sanctioning authority much after the expiry of one year and, therefore, the Accountant General had rightly called upon the petitioner to submit application in form Pension-12A.

Whether the Head Master of the school to whom the petitioner had submitted application for commutation of pension had deliberately withheld it or not is a pure question of fact which cannot possibly be decided in the writ jurisdiction in view of the serious controversy between the parties. In my opinion, the Accountant General had rightly asked the petitioner to submit application in form Pension-12A along with the medical certificate for entertaining the application of the petitioner for commutation of pension and as the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of the relevant rule, he has no right to seek a mandamus from the Court for directing the respondents to give him the benefit of commutation of pension.

On the basis of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment of G.P.F., pension and gratuity. The interest shall be payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1990 to the date of actual payment. This should be done by the respondents within a period of three months of the submission of a certified copy of this order.

The respondents are also directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner as Master in the District Board Primary School for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits. They are also directed to re-calculate the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner by counting the service rendered by the petitioner between 6.5.1955 and 30.9.1957. Necessary order for revision of the retiral benefits shall be passed within a period of three months of the submission of a certified copy of this order and the revised retiral benefits shall be given to the petitioner within next six months.

The claim of the petitioner for directing the respondents to grant him the benefit of commutation of pension is rejected.