AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—The petitioner herein is a retiree and seeks direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment and GIS.
The petitioner retired from the service on 30.6.2010 as Additional Superintendent of Police from the Police Communication & Technical Services. He was entitled for leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 3,31,083/- and GIS amounting to Rs. 26786/-. The petitioner received the aforesaid amount on 7.7.2010, i.e., after one year.
In their reply, respondents submitted that in order to finalize the pension case of the petitioner along with other officers, who were due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2010, a letter dated 30.9.2009 was issued to all the Heads of Police Department in the State of H.P. for obtaining the final demand/no demand certificate regarding long terms advances/outstanding recoveries etc. The response whereof was received in the Police Headquarters on 3rd July, 2010 and no amount was found recoverable from the petitioner. Thereafter, a requisite report was sent to the 1st respondent for taking appropriate action vide letter Annexure R1 dated 17th July, 2010.
On 13.8.2010 1st respondent sent communication (Annexure R2) for releasing the DCRG in favour of the petitioner.
On 18.6.2011 1st respondent accorded sanction regarding leave encashment for un-utilized earned leave in favour of the petitioner vide letter Annexure R3.
There after 4th respondent vide letter dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure R4) issued sanction order for its release. The payment of leave encashment was drawn and remitted into the account of the petitioner on 7.7.2011.
Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General in view of the reply aforesaid vehemently argued that the action taken by the respondent is owing to the administrative exigency and requisite clarification from the quarter concerned which cannot be termed as malafide and the respondents cannot be held responsible for the delay, if any.
I have considered the above submissions, which have been raised only to be rejected because under the Rules legally, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits becomes due immediately on retirement. The circumstances owing to the delay as explained by the respondents are quite in-convincing. Whatever information was required to be sought by the respondents was from their own department(s) and its functionaries should have acted with due promptness, in view of the date of superannuation of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner is well founded, therefore, he is entitled to interest on the delayed payments. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any statutory rule occupying the rate of interest but however, benefit of reasonable interest can be accorded to the petitioner, as held by the apex Court in S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Another, as the retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1st October, 2010, i.e., after three months from the date of his retirement till actual payment of leave encashment and GIS is paid to him. The interest calculated thereon be paid/released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment/order.
The petition is disposed in the above terms so also the pending application(s) if any.