Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 29 August, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.WP. No. 16659 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 29.08.2012
Narinder Kumar
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Union of India and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. P.M. Kansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application No. 873/PB/2011 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, and his prayer for grant of interest on the amount of commutation of pension has been rejected.
In this case, the petitioner took retirement on 31.7.2010, after serving the respondents for 28 years. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of September, 2010, he submitted his pension papers, including an application for Commuted Value of Pension, which was forwarded to the competent authority. Undisputedly, on 29.12.2011, full pension of the CWP No. 16659 of 2012 -2- petitioner was released at the rate of ` 6,555/- per month. However, his prayer for commutation of his pension remained under process. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 19.8.2011, when his request for payment of commutation value of pension, which comes to ` 2,80,439/-, was not released, he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal, wherein short reply was filed by the respondents, stating therein that prayer of the petitioner for release of Commuted Value of Pension could not be considered, because the application filed by him was not on prescribed proforma, and when the petitioner sent fresh application on the prescribed proforma during the pendency of that Original Application, the Commuted Value of Pension, amounting to ` 2,80,439/- was released. However, when the matter was finally disposed of, request of the petitioner for grant of interest was rejected. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court, as in our opinion, in the instant case, there was no deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the respondents for not processing the application of the petitioner for commutation of his pension. Delay in finalising the release of Commuted Value of Pension of the petitioner had taken place due to non-submission of the application on the prescribed proforma by the petitioner, as observed by CWP No. 16659 of 2012 -3- the learned Tribunal.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 29, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
ndj JUDGE