Vijay Kumar Gupta vs Chaudhary Charan Singh and Another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

C.M. No. 8608 of 2012

CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Rejoinder is taken on record.

CWP No. 23625 of 2011

As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 19.5.1976 by respondent No. 1. The petitioner retired on 30.11.2010 as Assistant, Teaching Veterinary Clinic Complex. Since the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not released, he filed CWP No. 4528 of 2011 before this Court. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents released the balance amount of gratuity on 28.3.2011 and commuted value of pension on 28.5.2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2011. The operative part of the said order reads thus:

The Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition as having been rendered infructuous qua the payment of retiral benefits.

However, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner qua interest towards delayed payment against retiral benefits as per notification F.D.Hr.O.M. No. 1/2/(152) 01-2FR II dt. 20.2.2002 within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of orders in case the petitioner is entitled for the same, the said benefits shall be released immediately thereafter. However, it goes without saying that in case the petitioner is found not entitled, the respondents shall pass a speaking order.

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondents passed an order dated 3.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) holding that there was no delay on the part of the respondents and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the interest as claimed.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated 3.12.2011 (Annexure P-4) with a further direction to the respondents to pay interest to him on delayed payment of retiral benefits.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Department had issued instructions dated 20.2.2002 (Annexure P-2) which categorically casts an obligation on the Department that the retiral benefits of an employee ought to be released within three months from the date of retirement and where the delay exceeds the period of three months of payment of such retiral benefits, the same should be paid along with interest calculated from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Since in the present case, the payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 3,01,227/- had been delayed by four months and commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 3,88,396/- had been delayed by period of six months, the respondents were liable to pay interest @ 9.5.% per annum to be calculated from the date of retirement till its realization.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Malhotra v. State of U.P., 2000 (4) SCT 267.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders as well as the instructions relied upon by the petitioner.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2010 and a part of the gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,01,227/- and commuted value of pension amounting to Rs. 3,88,396/- were paid to him on 28.3.2011 and 28.5.2011 respectively which is little beyond the period of three months. No doubt, the instructions issued by the State of Haryana vide Annexure P-2 provides for payment of retiral benefits within three months from the date of retirement and in case delay exceeds the period of 3 months interest calculated from the date of retirement till the date of payment can be granted. However, it may be noticed at this stage that admittedly, a part of pensionary benefits were paid to the petitioner within days of his retirement as shown in the following table:

and there remained a part of gratuity amount and commuted value of pension to be paid.

It may also be noticed that the respondents have taken a specific stand that the minor delay in releasing the remaining payment of retiral benefits was beyond the control of the University. It may further be observed here that the petitioner has not alleged any intentional delay on the part of the respondents in releasing his retiral benefits. The instructions relied upon by the petitioner are only guidelines for the respondents so that retiral benefits are paid without any undue delay. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no exception can be taken to the impugned order (Annexure P-4) and there being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.