Nek Ram Sharma vs State of Punjab and Others

Jitendra Chauhan, J—By way of the instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the respondents to pay the amount of commuted value of pension @ 40% as applicable at the time of retirement along with interest % 18% p.a., on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is contended that the petitioner joined as Clerk on 29.06.1972 and after serving more than 37 years of service, he retired on 30.06.2010. On 15.01.2010, a false FIR was registered against the petitioner, however no charge-sheet was filed against him and ultimately, the charges were dropped against the petitioner. The learned counsel refers to Annexure P-5, the memo dated 09.04.2013, issued by the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Govt., of Punjab, whereby the period of suspension w.e.f. 15.01.2010 to 31.05.2010 of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as duty period with all financial benefits and states that the petitioner is entitled to 40% of commuted value of pension instead of 20%. The learned counsel further refers to Annexure P-6, the instructions dated 22.04.2013, issued by the Govt., of Punjab and states that as per the instructions, the commuted value of pension @ 20% is applicable to the employees who retired on or after 01.04.2013 and the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to 40% of commutation of pension and interest on the delayed payments of retiral benefits.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that all the retiral benefits have been paid and the delay, if any, was due to the pendency of the FIR against the petitioner.

I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2010. At that relevant point of time in terms of policy. Annexure P-6, he was entitled to commute pension equivalent to 40% of the basic pension instead of 20% granted to him. The retiral benefits which were withheld on account of pendency of the FIR, in which no challan was filed and subsequently, the proceedings were dropped against the petitioner on 25.08.2012. The cancellation report prepared by the police was accepted by the learned Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide order dated 25.08.2012 (Annexure P-4). Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Annexure P-6, the instruction dated 22.04.2013, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. From the perusal of record, it emerges that the other retiral benefits i.e. Gratuity was released on 13.11.2013 and the payment of leave encashment was released on 18.06.2013, after a delay of three years after the retirement of the petitioner. Furthermore, the suspension period of the petitioner was also treated as duty period by the authorities, therefore, he cannot be deprived of the relief sought. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the commutation of pension @ 40% from the date of his retirement. As the delay has accrued on the basis of proceedings which was subsequently dropped against the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits @ 8% p.a., from the date of his retirement till its actual payment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.