AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the benefit of salary along with statutory increase and other benefits along with interest for the two years service, which was extended as the petitioner belongs to handicapped category. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to release 12% interest, which has been deducted from the arrears of the petitioner, vide order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) and consider his case for promotion as per his seniority in the handicapped category.
Briefly stated the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (now PSPCL) on 30.06.1981 as Sub Station Attendant in physically handicapped category and his medical was done by the Committee constituted by the Director, Health Services, Chandigarh. On 10.08.1998, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in the general category, though he was eligible to be promoted in physically handicapped category. In the year 2013 also, he was further promoted to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer in general quota and not considered in physically handicapped category. It has further been pleaded that age of retirement of the handicapped employee is 60 years. Date of birth of the petitioner is 10.02.1960 and his retirement was due on 29.02.2020, at the age of 60 years, but he was retired on 28.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, despite the request submitted by the petitioner on 06.02.2017. Office order No.145 dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) was issued by the Corporation to the effect that the handicapped employees are to retire at the age of 60 years as per Social Security Department, Child Development and Women Welfare Department and Personnel Department letter dated 02.05.2018 and Section 34 of the Rights of the Persons with Disability Act, 2016. Consequently, vide order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was granted extension for two years from 58 years to 60 years with the condition that the retirement benefits earlier taken by the petitioner shall be deducted along with 12% interest from the arrears. The petitioner submitted representation dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure P-4) questioning the said condition, which was followed by another representation dated 15.04.2021 (Annexure P-5). The said order dated 28.02.2020 has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
While issuing the notice of motion on 17.04.2023, the following order was passed:-
“Notice of motion returnable for 24.04.2023. Counsel for respondent No.1 is directed to file an affidavit as to how many employees, retiral benefits have been paid alongwith the interest @ 12% as has been claimed back from the petitioner vide order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-3).”
In pursuance thereto, an affidavit of Sh. Satinder Sharma, Chief Engineer, Operation, PSPCL, Border Zone, Amritsar, has been filed, wherein it has been stated as under:-
“1.That the deponent states that Sh. Pawan Kumar son of Sh. Mehar Chand had joined PSEB now PSPCL on 30-06-1981 as SSA. He remained posted at sub division kotli surat malhi under division Sub urban Batala retired on 28-02-2018 after attaining the age 58 years. As per medical certificate no. 2017/602 dated 07-11-2017 he was declared 72% disable under locomotors or cerebral palsy (Both legs affected but not arms). Petitioner had submitted an application for extension of service under disability category on dated 06.12.2017.
2.That the Competent authority gave him extension to continue job from 58 to 60 years under disability category after following the proper procedure and guidelines of PSPCL and issued the office order no. 119 dated 28.02.2020 in this regard.
3.That it is submitted that however it is mentioned in the said office order that the concerned DDO will deduct earlier retiral benefits along with 12% interest from his arrear. Before issuing office order 119 dated 28.02.20, an affidavit dully attested by Executive Magistrate was submitted by the petitioner in the office of Add. S.E/Op. Division Sub Batala that a difference of retiral benefits earlier claimed on superannuation retirement and retiral benefits after extension in service may be deducted with 12% interest.
4.That it is stated that however breaching his statement given in affidavit, the petitioner moved to the Hon'ble Court and demanded all retiral benefits with 12 percent interest.
5.That on dated 17-04-2023, the Hon'ble Court directed to file an affidavit as to how many employees retiral benefits have been paid along with the interest @ 12% as has been claimed back from the petitioner vide order dated 28.02.2020.
6.That in compliance to the directions issued by Hon'ble Court letters were issued to all HOD of PSPCL to provide information that how many employees whom retiral benefits have been paid along with the interest @ 12%.
7.That out of 33 HOD offices 2 no. offices had given retiral benefits to the employees with 12% interest the details of which is as under:-
(i)Hakam Singh Grewal S/o Sh. Sewa Singh who was retired as UDC on 31-03-2015 from the office of Guru Gobind Singh thermal plant PSPCL Ropar. However as per Chief Engineer Guru Gobind Singh thermal plant PSPCL Ropar office order no. 1430 dated. 28-06-2016 he was granted 2 years extension under handicap quota and he joined his service on 28-02-2016. He also submitted a similar affidavit that he will deposit his all retiral benefits early claimed as per decision of competent anthority. He was retired on 31-03-2017 after attaining age of 60 years. As per directions issued by Legal Advisor PSPCL, Patiala, PSPCL has paid amount of Rs. 34805 to him as 12% interest from 04-2017 to 01-2018.
(ii)Similarly Er. Kiran kumar verma retired as A.E. from 66 KV S/S Raikot on 31-10-2015 was granted an amount of Rs. 78877/- for late payment of gratuity and Rs. 23996 as late payment for Leave encashment at 12% interest as per decision of Hon'ble Court Civil Judge Jr. Division Ludhiana (CS 1114 of 2017).”
A perusal of the contents of the affidavit, as have been reproduced hereinabove, would show that one employee was granted 12% interesty on the retiral dues and another employee has been granted 12% interest on Court directions. Even otherwise, there is no justification for demanding 12% interest from the petitioner as it was the fault of the respondents-Corporation in retiring him at the age of 58, years once he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The petitioner was otherwise entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years and had even submitted a representation before his retirement. Subsequently, realizing the mistake, the respondents, vide order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), extended the petitioner's service from the age of 58 years to 60 years. However, the same was made conditional that the retiral benefits earlier received by the petitioner, be deducted from the arrears along with 12% interest. The respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong in first retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years and then claiming premium on the said wrong in the shape of interest @ 12% on the retiral dues of the petitioner, which were released to him on his retirement at the age of 58 years. The well settled principle that no person can be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong squarely applies to facts of present case. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a demand would be inequitable and cannot be sustained. The respondents cannot convert their own administrative error into a financial liability upon the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-3), to the extent it demands interest at the rate of 12% from the petitioner, is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the necessary benefits to the petitioner along with 7% interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner is also held entitled to costs of Rs.35,000/-, to be paid by the respondents-Corporation, as he was compelled to approach this Court on account of the untenable demand raised by the respondents.