AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and release the remaining service-cum-retiral benefits of the petitioner, along with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Safai Sewak in the Municipal Council, Malout, and after being granted an extension of one year in service, he retired on 30.09.2019. At the time of his retirement, out of total service-cum-retirement benefits, only an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner by the respondents and the remaining amount of dues was withheld by them. Aggrieved against the said action of the respondents, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 12.06.2020 upon them, but when no response was received by the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing CWP-10948-2020 (Ved Parkash Vs. The State of Punjab and others). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the service-cum-retiral benefits of the petitioner were released by the respondents and consequently, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by filing a representation with regard to the fault in the calculation of the pensionary benefits and for grant of interest on the delayed payments. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) upon the respondents, which was replied by the respondents, vide reply dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said reply, the same calculation was sent to the petitioner which was sent earlier. He further submits that since there is a considerable delay in releasing the service-cum-retiral benefits, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payments of the said benefits. The service-cum-retiral benefits of the petitioner were released in the following manner :-
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Amount (in Rs.) | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Gratuity | 500000 | 30.09.2019 |
| 100000 | 16.12.2019 | ||
| 25147 | 29.05.2020 | ||
| 100000 | 30.06.2020 | ||
| 83613 | 20.07.2020 | ||
| 2. | Leave Encashment | 404380 | 20.07.2020 |
| 3. | Pending balance of PF/CPF/PF Advance | 91123 | 20.07.2020 |
| 4. | Pending Pay Scale which was to be deposited in PF Account | 11167 | 20.07.2020 |
| 5. | Balance of DA | 49553 | 20.07.2020 |
| 6. | PF Amount | 24065 | 18.11.2019 |
| Total | 13,89,048/- |
Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.3, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, submits that the delay in releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not intentional and purely procedural, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant documents.
Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2019 after getting one year extension, and no departmental/ criminal proceedings were pending against him before or after his retirement. Therefore, he was entitled for the release of his retiral benefits immediately after his retirement and there was no legal impediment for denying the same. However, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were released after a delay of more than 09 months from the date of his retirement. Since there is a considerable delay in releasing the said benefits, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of the said benefits.
A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has 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 the said judgment is as under:-
“8.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 from 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. xx xx xx xx”
Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court has 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 the said judgment is as under: -
“5.xx xx xx xx 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 laying 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.”
In view of the above factual position and settled principles of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2019 (i.e. after two months from the date of retirement of the petitioner) till the actual date of payment(s), within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.