Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Chander Balmiki vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 July, 2010
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 9905 of 1990
Date of Decision : July 30, 2010.
Harish Chander Balmiki
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- None for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Prayer in the present writ petition is for grant of penal interest on account of delayed payment of retrial dues to the petitioner as also grant of 65 days half pay leave in addition to 75 days earned leave, which was to his credit as he was entitled to encashment, which has been paid to him as per Rule 8.116 (iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-I, Part-I, as applicable to the State of Haryana.
The petitioner was an employee of respondent and was working as Head Clerk in the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Nuh, District Gurgaon. He was prematurely retired by respondent on 01.05.1984 (AN), vide Order dated 13.01.1984 on attaining the age of 55 years. In due course, his normal retirement age would have been 31.08.1986. He filed a civil suit, challenging the said Order passed by respondents, prematurely retiring him. The said civil suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.1988. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the same was allowed and Order dated 13.01.1984, retiring the petitioner prematurely on 01.05.1984, was set aside and he was held entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years, i.e., 31.08.1986. It was also held that he C.W.P. No. 9905 of 1990. -2- would be entitled to all benefits accordingly.
During the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioner was granted some benefits by respondents, to which he was entitled to as retiral benefits.
Since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, I have gone through the pleadings. It has been averred by the petitioner in the petition that he had not been paid due amount, to which he would have been entitled to as per Order dated 13.01.1984 retiring the petitioner prematurely on 01.05.1984. He has, thus, prayed for interest on the said delayed payments. He has further prayed that since his normal date of retirement was 31.08.1986, but some of the retiral benefits have been paid to him after the said date, he would be entitled to the penal interest on those delayed payments as well. Apart from this, the petitioner has prayed that he be granted the benefit of encashment of 65 days half pay leave standing to his credit on the date of his superannuation in the light of Rule 8.116(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-I, Part-I. On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner could not have been paid the retiral benefit as claimed by him in the year 1986, treating him to be in service till 1986 as there was an Order prematurely retiring him on 31.08.1984. The civil suit preferred by the petitioner, although, was initially dismissed by the trial Court, but on an appeal preferred by him, the same having been allowed on 21.01.1989, the petitioner could have been paid the said benefits only after that and accordingly, the retiral benefits have been duly paid to him, treating him to be in service till 31.08.1986. He contends that the petitioner would not be entitled to the claim of interest, which he has made in the present writ petition. He further contends that there is no provision under the Rules for payment of half pay leave, which has been claimed by the petitioner. Even if C.W.P. No. 9905 of 1990. -3- Rule 8.116(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-I, Part-I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, is taken into consideration, the petitioner would not beentitled to the benefit claimed by him as he has been paid full pay for the period from the date of his premature retirement till his normal date of superannuation, i.e., 31.08.1986. He on this basis contends that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as claimed by him in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
I have gone through the records of the case.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner would have been entitled to the retiral benefits, treating his service from the date of his appointment till the date of his premature retirement, i.e., 01.05.1984. The details as has been provided by the petitioner in para-13 of the writ petition, has not been disputed by respondents. A perusal of this would show that there is delay in making payment to the petitioner of his retiral dues under certain heads, on which the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest thereon from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment.
As regards claim of the petitioner that he would be entitled to 65 days half pay leave encashment as per Rule 8.116(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-I, Part-I, the said claim cannot be accepted. Rule 8.116
(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules reads as follow :-
"Leave preparatory to retirement (hereinafter called the LPR) may be granted upto one hundred and eighty days on full pay, provided the leave on full pay is due and admissible. If the leave on full pay to this extent is not due, the balance of LPR falling short of one hundred and eighty days may be granted on half pay, if due, subject to the condition that the total leave thus granted does not exceed one hundred and eighty days. In case no leave on full pay is due, the LPR may be granted upto one hundred and C.W.P. No. 9905 of 1990. -4- eighty days on half pay, provided the leave on half is due and admissible."
A perusal of the above Rule would show that this was leave granted to an employee, which he could avail of immediately before his retirement, which was for a period of 180 days. If, the employee had 180 days of full pay leave to his credit, he could avail of the same and if he did not have the said days of full pay leave to his credit, he was entitled to half pay leave for the remaining period of days, provided he had the same to his credit. Meaning thereby that he would only be entitled to the salary for the period during which he avails of the said benefit. There is nothing in the said Rule, which provides for encashment of the available leave for the period as mentioned in the Rule in case he does not avail of the same. In any case, leave encashment of full pay is admissible under the Rules, which he has been granted by respondents, which comes to 73 days earned leave and the same has been paid to him. Further for 180 days, the petitioner has been treated as in service and has been duly paid for the said period by respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner is not held entitled to the benefit of encashment of 65 days half pay leave under the abovesaid Rule.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed payments made by respondents at the rate of 9% on pension from 02.05.1984 to 31.08.1986, gratuity as due on 02.05.1984, commutation of pension and leave encashment, from the date of accrual till the date of payment of the same to the petitioner. The amount due to the petitioner be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
C.W.P. No. 9905 of 1990. -5-
Copy of this Order be given to counsel for respondents under the signatures of the Special Secretary of the Court for forwarding the same and compliance thereof and convey it to the petitioner.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 30, 2010.
sjks.