Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Financial Commissioner & Principal ... vs Hasan Singh Kanwar on 7 October, 2009
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 915 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.10.2009.
The Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary
to Govt. Haryana, Irrigation Department, Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh and others
......Appellants
Vs.
Hasan Singh Kanwar, SDO.
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
PRESENT: Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl. Advocate General,
Haryana, for appellants.
****
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. The appellants are aggrieved by directions to pay interest to the respondent on account of delay in releasing the gratuity.
2. The respondent was employed with the appellants and retired on 31.3.2004 as Sub-Divisional Officer. His gratuity was withheld on account of pendency of departmental proceedings, which issue was finalized in favour of the respondent on 22.1.2007. Thereafter, the gratuity was released on 9.5.2008. The respondent filed writ petition for payment of interest for delay of about four years. The claim was contested on the ground that since disciplinary proceedings were pending, delay in releasing gratuity was justified.
3. Learned Single Judge held that even if there was some justification for delay, the respondent could not be deprived of the interest for delay in making payment. Accordingly, direction to pay interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 8% per annum was given.
LPA No. 915 of 2009 [2]
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent was exonerated on 22.1.2007 and gratuity was released on 9.5.2008 and though there may be unexplained delay of more than 1 year, there was justification for withholding of gratuity on account of pendency of proceedings.
6. We are unable to appreciate this submission. Even if there was justification on account of pendency of proceedings, the respondent could not be deprived of interest which may have accrued on the amount. Compensatory interest and penal interest are on different footing. Direction for penal interest may be justified only if there was wrongful conduct but compensatory interest could be ordered for delay in making payment, to prevent unjust enrichment and also on the principle of restitution.
7. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
October 7, 2009 JUDGE
raghav