Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed Status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Manjit Singh Narang, Managing Director, PRTC, on behalf of the respondents which is also to be read in other connected matters.

4. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are retired employees of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Nabha Road, Patiala (for short, 'PRTC') who have claimed interest on the delayed payment made to them on account of pension or pensionary benefits i.e. Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Provident Fund and grant of ACP's etc.

5. At the very outset, it has emerged that almost in all the petitions, pension and other benefits have been released/disbursed. However, in some cases, some part of the amount on account of above referred benefits are still to be paid/disbursed to some of the petitioners. As far as the liability to pay retiral benefits, it is neither in dispute nor has it been denied. CWP No.15306 of 2016 & connected cases [8] Similarly, it is also an undisputed fact that almost in all the cases, pensionary benefits have been released/disbursed after a considerable delay from the date of their superannuation but no interest on the delayed payment has been paid. Similarly, in other cases of similar nature which also pertains to PRTC, interest @ 9% per annum has already been allowed with effect from three months after the date of retirement till its actual payment. Otherwise also, by now, it is pretty settled that the employer is under a legal obligation to pay interest on the delayed payment and especially, when delay is attributable to the employer. It is an obligation on the part of the employer to explain and in the instant case, PRTC is to explain as to why it has not discharged its obligation to pay the retiral benefits within a prescribed period to the satisfaction of the Court. As per the averments raised on behalf of PRTC, delay is stated to have mainly occurred on account of shortage or paucity of funds, and further that, PRTC has been running in losses but for that reason, employees cannot be made to suffer or to part with their pensionary benefits which cannot be stated to be a bounty, rather, pensionary benefits are the hard earned money of the employees who have served PRTC for almost 2/3 decades and even more than that.

CWP No.15306 of 2016 & connected cases [12]

13. Now, the question which survives for determination is with regard to the period in which payment is to be made by PRTC by way of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits or other due, if any, to any of the petitioners. No doubt, as PRTC has been running in losses for a considerable period, and there appears some financial constraints on account of paucity of funds but that cannot be used as a weapon for denial of the interest on the delayed payment or other benefits, if any remains of any of the petitioners. In case Satpal Singh & others vs. Road Transport Corporation, Patiala & others, CWP No.10331 of 2016, decided on July 23, 2016 alongwith some other connected writ petitions, PRTC was directed to make payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment as early as possible but not later than six months. In similar situation, prior to passing of aforesaid judgment, in case Bhagwant Singh vs. The Pepsu Road Transport Copt. & others, CWP No.6403 of 2014 decided on April 24, 2015, respondents were directed to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% after expiry of period of three months till payment is released within a period of three months.

18. A period of more than one year has elapsed from passing of judgment dated July 23, 2016 in CWP No.26520 of 2014 and respondent - PRTC must have earned the amount. No straight jacket formula can be formulated or projected for providing a specific time to disburse the various retiral benefits, however, considering the various judgments as well as financial constraints, PRTC is directed to evolve some source(s) to arrange the money to be paid to the petitioners who owe large responsibilities/liabilities of their families to discharge after retirement. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that it would be apt, proper and justifiable to direct the respondent - PRTC to make the payment(s) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The respondent - PRTC is further directed to release the benefit(s), if any, still remains to be paid to any of the petitioner(s) within the aforestated stipulated period alongwith interest as observed above.