Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Sps Dahiya Son Of Sh.Nand Lal Dahiya on 26 April, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 26, 2012
State of Haryana and others .......Appellants
Versus
SPS Dahiya son of Sh.Nand Lal Dahiya .......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General
for the appellant.
Mr.JK Goel, Advocate for the respondent.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Plaintiff - Shri S.P.S. Dahiya filed a suit for declaration and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the State of Haryana to the effect that he was entitled to an amount of `3.5 lacs as Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter to be referred as 'DCRG') along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of retirement till realization. Undisputedly, the amount of `3.5 lacs towards DCRG was released by the State on 22.9.2008 and as such, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 10.9.2011 holding him entitled to interest @ 24% per annum from the date of retirement till its realization. A civil appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Gurgaon vide judgment dated 25.11.2011 thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Accordingly, the State of Haryana is in second appeal before this Court.
2. I have heard Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellants and Mr.JK Goel, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It would be apposite to mention that this Court had issued notice of motion in the present second appeal upon the State counsel having confined her submissions only in respect to the quantum of interest.
4. Briefly, it may be noticed that the plaintiff-respondent was working on the post of Executive Engineer with the State of Haryana, Irrigation Department and he retired on 28.2.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation. In the year 2005, he had been served with a charge-sheet under Rule 8 of the Haryana Punishment and Appeal Rules, vide memo dated 19.7.2005. The plaintiff had submitted reply on 13.12.2005. No proceedings had thereafter been initiated by the State and the plaintiff had served repeated reminders dated 25.9.2007, 14.11.2007, 28.11.2007, 18.12.2007 and 4.1.2008 calling upon his employer to take a decision on the charge-sheet. Needless to mention that the amount towards DCRG stood withheld on account of the serving of the charge-sheet. Finally, on 23.5.2008, the State dropped the charges against the plaintiff and it was only thereafter that the amount towards DCRG was sanctioned by the Government, vide memo dated 28.7.2008, and Accountant General, Haryana released such gratuity amount of `3.5 lacs on 22.9.2008.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has fairly conceded RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M) 3 that the amount in question towards DCRG had become payable to the plaintiff-respondent on the date of his retirement i.e. 28.2.2006 and as such, there was no reason or basis for having withheld such amount for the period 28.2.2006 till the disbursal thereof i.e. 22.9.2008. However, learned counsel would contend that the grant of interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of DCRG w.e.f. the date of retirement till the release was highly excessive and unreasonable. Accordingly, as per the learned counsel appearing for the State, a mixed question of law and fact that would arise for consideration in the present appeal to the following effect:
"Whether the awarded interest @ 24% per annum is excessive, unreasonable and against the settled principles of law?"
6. It is well settled that pension as also retiral benefits payable to a retired Government servant are no longer a bounty which would be payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government. Pension and retiral benefits have been held to be a valuable right and are, in fact, in the nature of a deferred payment of salary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M.Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356 had observed in the following terms:
"Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment."RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M) 4
7. A Full Bench of our Court in R.S.Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) RSJ 318 had awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed disbursement of retiral benefits to the petitioners therein.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Piari v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) RSJ 682 had also awarded interest @ 12% per annum in the light of the Full Bench judgment in R.S.Randhawa's case (supra).
9. Accordingly, I find that it would meet the interest of justice so as to modify the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and hold the plaintiff-respondent entitled to the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement till realization and release of the amount of `3.5 lacs towards DCRG.
10. Mr.JK Goel, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- respondent has been fair in stating that the rate of interest at 12% per annum would be a fair compensation for the withholding of the retiral benefits to his client.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal is partly accepted and the question of law as raised by learned counsel appearing for the State is answered in the affirmative and it is held that the award of interest @ 24% per annum on the withheld amount of DCRG is excessive and accordingly, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified to the extent that the plaintiff-respondent is held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld amount of DCRG i.e. `3.5 lacs from the date of retirement till the date of its release. RSA No.1110 of 2012 (O&M) 5
12. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
13. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of the modification indicated hereinabove.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
April 26, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No