Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Ashok Kumar on 20 April, 2012
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 20, 2012
State of Haryana and others .......Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar .......Respondent
RSA No.4474 of 2010 (O&M)
Om Parkash .......Appellant
versus
Ashok Kumar and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana for the
appellants in RSA No.4472 of 2010.
Mr.BK Bagri, Advocate for the respondent
in RSA Nos.4472 and 4474 of 2010.
Mr.VK Jindal, Advocate for the appellant
in RSA No.4474 of 2010.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Two RSAs bearing No.4472 and 4474 of 2010 would stand decided by this common judgment as both the second appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari.
2. Facts, in brief, may be noticed:
Plaintiff - Ashok Kumar son of Triloki Nath instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking interest @ 24% RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 2 upon the delayed payment of his retiral benefits. It was pleaded that he retired from the post of MPHS(M) from SCH Bawal, District Rewari on 31.8.2004. Even though the entire formalities with regard to preparation of his pension papers had been completed at his end but the PPO, GPO and CPO had been dispatched from the office of the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh on 13.1.2005 and were received by the plaintiffs in the month of February 2005. The plaintiff stated that the same were tendered immediately with the Assistant Treasury Officer, Bawal and he had been asked to attend the office on the next day, i.e. 1.3.2005, along with one witness. On 1.3.2005, the plaintiff duly presented himself in the office along with witness, namely, Shri Mohinder Singh, Accountant, Government College, Bawal and his signatures along with that of the witness had been obtained on the relevant papers. Inspite of having completed the paper work, the retiral benefits had not been released to him. It was pleaded that the officials working in the office of the Treasury Officer, Bawal had acted with malafide intention and he had been asked to submit the original GPO, PPO as also CPO issued by Accountant General, Haryana inspite of the fact that he had already submitted the same. Such conduct had necessitated the issuance of a legal notice on behalf of the plaintiff and it was thereafter on 26.9.2007 that his PPO, GPO and CPO were sent by the Treasury Officer, Rewari to Accountant General Haryana for re-validation and the same were re-validated vide order dated 2.11.2007. Accordingly, the gratuity amount of ` 1,91,862/- and commutation of pension of an amount of ` 2,51,543/- were released to him only on RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 3 6.12.2007 i.e. after a delay of three years and three months from the date of his attaining the age of super-annuation.
3. The suit was contested and the defendants took up a plea that the delay had occurred on account of the plaintiff himself having not submitted the documents in original. It was further contended that the requisite documents had been deliberately withheld so as to raise a claim of interest upon the delayed payment of retiral benefits.
4. The trial Court upon due appreciation of evidence has disbelieved the contention and the defence raised by the defendants. It has been held that a retiree would under no circumstances withhold the requisite documents that would facilitate the release of his retiral benefits which in return would be the only source of subsistence that a retiree would have. The relevant discussion in regard thereto is contained in paras 19 and 20 of the judgment passed by the trial Court and the same is re- produced below:
"After carefully perusing the case file and going through the respective submissions of the counsel for both parties, this court is of the opinion that in the present case, the date of super-annuation of the plaintiff from CHC Bawal has been admitted to be 31.8.2004 and also it has been admitted that one set of papers of the original papers as PPO, GPO and CPO were received by the plaintiff in the month of February. Now, the controversy arises, as to whether these original papers were handed over by him to Sh.Om RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Parkash Cashier or whether the same were never presented before Om Parkash failing which no amount could have been disbursed by him. The plaintiff has submitted that original papers being submitted once could not have been given again, whereas, the contention of defendants is that the plaintiff in order to have more interest on the amount which he wanted to recover with the assistance of court have deliberately not filed the papers in original and thus, the present suit has been filed claiming the interest on the arrears. This court does not agree with the contention of the defendant as no person of ordinary prudence would keep on waiting for his amount for indefinite number of years in order to seek the assistance of court and claim interest thereupon. The pension's amount which is given to an employee on his retirement is for this subsistence and it cannot be reasonably presumed the employee who is dependent on this amount after his retirement could not submit his papers just to seek the interest on the amount. Therefore, the defence which has been taken upon does not appear to be prudent. Rather, it is apparent from the circumstances of the case that papers in original for PPO, CPO and GPO had been handed over by the plaintiff to Om Parkash and he was directed to appear on the next date. This fact of plaintiff coming on the next date along with one witness and taking of the signatures of the plaintiff and RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 5 witness on relevant papers has been admitted by the defendant. Thereafter, no amount of payment was given to him and later on letters have been issued to the plaintiff on the ground that no papers in original has been submitted by him to the Treasury Officers because of which no payment could have been given. Once when these papers were given by the plaintiff then these papers could not have been given by him again and therefore, it is only after these papers were revalidated that he was able to get this amount. It cannot be presumed that the plaintiff would take such a long course and should make the claim of his pension in controversy just for having the interest on the same.
Also, if the plaintiff was not having the papers in original, then no purpose of having the signature of the witness and plaintiff on 1.3.2005 would have been served. Therefore, the plaintiff had given the papers in original and thereafter, he was told to bring the witness along with him so the claim could be handed over to him and this amount was intentionally withheld with malafide objective. The letters which have been issued thereafter are just the defence which has been prepared in the present case so as to avoid the payment of claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment which have been done from the date of his retirement i.e. RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 6 31.8.2004 uptil the date of realization at the rate of 18% p.a. in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled Moti Ram Gupta, Ex-Excise Inspector vs. State of Haryana and another, and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Vijay L.Malhotra vs. State of UP and others (supra). Hence issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
5. Accordingly, the suit filed by plaintiff-Ashok Kumar was partly decreed and he was held entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of pension as also other retiral benefits @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 31.8.2004 till the date of realization. However, the other claim raised by the plaintiff with regard to his TA bills and house rent amount was held to be time barred.
6. In a civil appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants, the findings of the trial Court had been affirmed but subject to modification that the interest on the delayed payment from the date of attaining the age of super-annuation till the actual date of making the payment if paid within a period of three months from the date of delivery of judgment would be @ 12% per annum and if such payment was not released within such stipulated period of three months, then the plaintiff will be held entitled to interest @ 18% per annum as allowed by the trial Court. That apart, the Additional District Judge, Rewari vide impugned judgment dated 27.8.2010 has also directed the Director, Treasury and Accounts, Government of Haryana to take appropriate action against the RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 7 erring officials posted in the Treasury Office, Bawal at the relevant point of time including one Om Parkash who was working as Cashier in the office of Assistant Treasury Officer, Bawal so as to recover the amount of interest from such officials.
7. Against such impugned judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, two second appeals have arisen i.e. RSA No.4472 of 2010 filed on behalf of the State and the other RSA bearing No.4474 of 2010 has been filed by Om Parkash who, in fact, had not been arrayed as a party- defendant in the Courts below. Suffice it to notice that vide order dated 13.1.2011 passed by this Court, Om Parkash had been permitted to file the second appeal bearing RSA No.4474 of 2010 on the ground that a finding adverse to him had been recorded without him having been impleaded and, thus, without even having been granted an opportunity of being heard.
8. I have heard Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant in RSA No.4472 of 2010 and Mr.BK Bagri, Advocate for plaintiff-respondent Ashok Kumar as also Mr.VK Jindal, Advocate for appellant Om Parkash in RSA No.4474 of 2010.
9. Insofar as the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, I find no basis to interfere with the conclusions drawn that the delay that had occurred in the release of the retiral benefits of plaintiff- Ashok Kumar was without any justifiable reason. It is well settled that pension as also the other retiral benefits of an employee are not a bounty but are in the nature of a deferred payment of salary. I find no fault in the reasoning RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 8 adopted by the Courts below wherein it has been held that it is beyond comprehension that en employee having attained the age of super-annuation would deliberately withhold the requisite documents which would thereby result in a delay in the release of his retiral benefits which, in fact, was the source of his survival. Accordingly, I reject the contention and submission raised on behalf of State of Haryana wherein it had been sought to be contended that the delay, if any, as regards the release of retiral benefits was attributable to the plaintiff-respondent himself.
10. Mr.VK Jindal, learnend counsel for the appellant-Om Parkash in RSA No.4474 of 2010 has confined his arguments with regard to a short and limited question of law i.e. "As to whether plaintiff Om Parkash could have been held responsible for the delay in release of retiral benefits and accordingly, could be held liable for the interest liability without he even having been heard?"
11. On such question, learned counsel appearing for the State as also the counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent would fairly concede that factually, Om Parkash who had not been impleaded as a party-defendant has been clearly denied the opportunity to defend himself.
12. Under the rules of natural justice, an adverse order which would entail adverse civil consequences cannot be passed without affording proper and effective opportunity to such affected person. Even though, on first principle, I would agree with the view taken by the lower Appellate Court that responsibility requires to be fixed upon the erring officials who RSA No.4472 of 2010 (O&M) 9 had caused the delay of more than three years in the release of retiral benefits to the plaintiff-respondent, but a procedure in consonance with the rules of natural justice would have to be adhered to prior to fixing such responsibility. Appellant-Om Parkash in RSA No.4474 of 2010 was not even a party to the suit and yet findings have been recorded against him holding him liable for the payment of interest component. Such findings recorded against Om Parkash in the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I answer the question of law posed hereinabove in favour of appellant-Om Parkash. Liberty is, however, granted to the Director, Treasury and Accounts, Government of Haryana to initiate as also to take appropriate action against the erring officials who had been posted in the office of the Assistant, Treasury Officer, Bawal at the relevant point of time upon affording due and effective opportunity to all concerned.
13. For the reasons recorded above, RSA No.4472 of 2010 is dismissed and RSA No.4474 of 2010 is partly allowed in the light of the partial modification of the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari in terms of the liberty as indicated hereinabove.
14. I order accordingly.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
April 20, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No