Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Dass vs State Of Punjab Etc on 11 July, 2017
Author: Jaspal Singh
Bench: Jaspal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 233
Civil Writ Petition No.8772 of 2015 (O & M)
Date of Decision: July 11, 2017
Charan Dass
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENTS
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
...
PRESENT: - Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
. . .
Jaspal Singh, J
1. By virtue of this civil writ petition, preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the retiral benefits such as Gratuity, Medical Allowance, Pension, Commutation Pension, Leave Encashment etc. and arrears of Pension. Further prayer is that petitioner is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the delay payment of all the pending retiral benefits.
2. At the very out set of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of all the retiral benefits on June 03, Avin Kumar 2017.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8772 of 2015 [2] 2016. Accordingly, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous, in as much as grant of retiral benefits is concerned.
3. As regards grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that interest on delayed payment has not been awarded to which the petitioner is legally entitled. A writ in the nature of mandamus is legally maintainable for giving a direction to make the payment where it is justified in view of judgment delivered in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab & others, 1997(3) SCT 468 as well as Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., 2000(4) SCT 267. Gist of aforesaid judgment in the case of A.S. Randhawa (supra) is that a writ for direction to pay retiral benefits including interest is maintainable and that pensionary benefits, if released after a delay, entitles the incumbent to interest at the rate of 12%, which may even go upto 18% per annum. In case Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the appeal only on the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, has observed that in case of delay of payment, interest has to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues, in case there is no reason or justification for not making payment. It observed:
"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.
4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e. 31-8-1997 till the date of payments."
4. Similarly, in case Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) SCT 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Avin Kumar 2017.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8772 of 2015 [3] retiree is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld GP Fund and Gratuity etc. from the date the same became payable to him on his attaining the age of superannuation till the date the payment is made to him.
5. Adverting to the facts of the case, petitioner retired on December 31, 2014 on attaining the age of superannuation but retiral benefits were only released and disbursed to him on June 03, 2016. There is no reason what to talk of any plausible reason or justification for delayed disbursal of retiral benefits. thus, it is also a settled principle that grant of interest on the delayed payment is on account of the fact that retiree was unable to enjoy its fruits immediately on his retirement and then a right accrues to him to be compensated and the only way to compensate him is to pay interest for the period of delayed payment. Now, a question arises as to the period in which the retiral benefits should be disbursed to the retiree.
6. In case A.S. Randhawa (supra), the Full Bench of this Court observed that a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retiree in proper time.
7. It is also well settled that proper time for the disbursement of retiral benefits will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed three months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356; D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nitran Nigam Ltd., 2014(4) S.C.T. 128; A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab (supra); J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 355; and Manohar Lal vs. State of Punjab Avin Kumar 2017.07.13 16:50 & others, 2016(4) SCT 250 as well as judgment of Madhya Pradesh High I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.8772 of 2015 [4] Court in case Sudha Chhipa & others vs. State of M.P. & others, 2014 LIC 2125. While following the Full Bench decision in the case of A.S. Randhawa (supra), this Court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) Service Cases Today 85, where there was delay of 16 years in payment of retiral benefits, has awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment.
7. Undoubtedly, petitioner stood retired on December 31, 2014 and payment of retiral dues was made on June 03, 2016. At the most, the respondents could have taken a period of three months from the date of retirement during which the payment of retiral benefits should have been disbursed to the petitioner. In the aforesaid cases, the rate of interest to be paid on delayed payment has been held to be reasonable to the tune of 12% per annum which may even go up to 18% in certain cases. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case in hand, this Court is of the view that grant of interest @ 12% per annum, on the delayed payment after expiry of three months from the date of retirement of petitioner till the payment, is legally and factually justified. Accordingly, this Court awards an interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment w.e.f. April 01, 2014 to actual date of payment i.e. June 03, 2016, which shall be paid by the respondents after calculating the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
8. Disposed of.
(Jaspal Singh)
July 11, 2017 Judge
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
Avin Kumar
2017.07.13 16:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document