AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
Prayer
Jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.05.2020(Annexure P-9) being absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as the impugned order passed by the respondent department in compliance of order passed by this Hon’ble court in CWP No. 36661 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-5) is mere a formality just to deny the benefits of interest on delayed payment on retiral benefits and further for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of interest @12% per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment etc from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.
Brief Facts
Brief facts of the case succinctly stated are that the petitioner got retired as Technician Grade-II from the respondent Department after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019.Though the petitioner retired on 31.03.2019 but he was paid Leave Encashment of Rs.4,82,580/- Vide bill no.464 on 05.09.2019 i.e. after 5 months and further the amount of provident fund R. 14,29,464/- is also paid to the petitioner on 09.09.2019 i.e after 5 months from the date of retirement. The State has not behaved like an ideal employer and has delayed the payment of retiral benefits of his employee. On 18.12.2019, legal notice was duly served to the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents therefore the petitioner had no other option but to approach this court bearing CWP No. 36661 of 2019 which was disposed of in term of “A.S.Randhawa Vs State of Punjab, 1997(3) SCT 468” for passing a speaking order within a period of three months which was not complied with wherein the petitioner approached the court again by way of Contempt petition i.e COCP No. 2744 of 2020 which was also disposed of. The impugned speaking order dated 15.05.2020 has been deliberately withheld by the respondents from 15.05.2020 to 26.04.2022 and has not been supplied to the petitioner by the department.
Hence, this petition.
Contentions
On the behalf of petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner got retired as Technician Grade-II from the respondent department after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 but he received Leave Encashment of Rs.4,82,580/-after a delay of five months, provident fund of Rs.14,29,464/- after 5 months from the date of the retirement. Further, petitioner who was entitled for amount of gratuity of Rs.7,96,257/-, commuted value pension of Rs. 3,06,784/- has been paid after five and half months from the date of retirement.
It is further contended that amount of GIS OF Rs.56,000/- has not been paid till date and only amount of Rs.46,904/- has been paid on 01.10.2019 which has caused mental harassment to the petitioner.
It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that when no action was taken by the respondent, the petitioner served upon them a legal notice dated 26.09.2019 claiming the payment of GIS with interest and interest on delayed payments of Leave Encashmnet, GPF but no action was taken by the respondents, which compelled him to file CWP No. 36661 of 2019 which was disposed of in terms of “A.S.Randhawa vs State of Punjab, 1997(3) SCT 468” with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order within a period of three months.(Annexure P-5) which was not complied with and the petitioner filed COCP No. 2744 of 2020 which was again disposed of on the statement of the respondent-department that the State in compliance of the directions, passed a speaking order dated 15.05.2020, wherein consequential payments have been paid to the petitioner.(Annexure P-8)
It is vehemently argued that in the impugned order dated 15.05.2020, the petitioner has not been given benefits with regard to delayed payment and it has been stated that if there is any delay, an enquiry report be submitted by the Deputy Collector but till date no enquiry has been conducted by the department.
On behalf of the Respondents
Counsel for State-Respondent contends that the petitioner after his retirement submitted his pension papers with the department on 14.01.2019 i.e with the delay of about 3 months whereas it was incumbent upon the petitioner to submit his case with the department at least 6 months prior to his date of retirement as per the rules. It is further contended that respondent no.3 had approved the gratuity, commuted pension and pension of the petitioner on 28.05.2019 viz. within a time span of 1 month and 28 days which is well within the stipulated time and payment was made by District Treasury Officer thereupon therefore no delay of any kind has been committed by the respondent-department.
Heard counsel for the parties at length.
Analysis
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner got retired as Technician Grade-II from the respondent department after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 but he received Leave Encashment of Rs.4,82,580/-, provident fund of Rs.14,29,464/- after 5 months from the date of the retirement. Further, petitioner who was entitled for amount of gratuity of Rs.7,96,257/-, commuted value pension of Rs. 3,06,784/- has been paid after five and half months from the date of retirement.
It is further contended that amount of GIS OF Rs.56,000/- has not been paid till date and only amount of Rs.46,904/- has been paid on 01.10.2019 which has caused mental harassment to him.
It is a well settled proposition of law that the employee would be entitled to interest on the amount wrongfully withheld by the respondents, particularly where such retention was without any valid, lawful, or justifiable basis.
Since in the instant petition, the said amount was legitimately due and payable to the employee, the respondents’ failure to release it within the appropriate time deprived the employee of the use and benefit of his money.
The ratio stands discussed in “A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468.” wherein it has been 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 retirer 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 front 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 case of “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 J.S. Cheema's case (supra) 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.”
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the facts of the instant case as well as spectrum of law discussed herein above, this Court if of the strong view that the order dated 15.05.2020 (Annexure P-9) stands quashed and the employee is entitled not only to the principal amount wrongfully retained but also to reasonable interest thereon for the period of such unauthorized retention, so as to adequately compensate the employee for the financial loss occasioned by the respondents’ conduct.
The respondents are directed to release the delayed retiral payment alongwith interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the actual realisation within a period of two months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order.
In terms of above, the petition stands allowed.
Ordered accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any shall disposed of.