Petitioner challenging delayed release of pensionary benefits claimed interest due to substantial delay between retirement and receipt of dues. Court held delay attributable to petitioner as paperwork submitted post-retirement, dismissing petition with no interest awarded.
No interest on retiral dues; repeat petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.15475 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.15475 of 2007 Date of decision: 2.9.2008
Pritam Kaur
..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)
Replication has been filed today in the court. The same is taken on record.
The petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to release her pensionery benefits namely, GP Fund, commuted pension and payment of account of GIS along with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although the aforementioned dues have been paid to the petitioner but there has been substantial delay in payment of the same, hence the petitioner is entitled to interest. It is submitted that the petitioner retired as a Radiographer on 30th April, 2007 whereas the last payment with regard to the retiral dues amounting to Rs.2,38,237/- has been paid to her on 28.9.2007. The other payment with regard to the retiral dues has been paid on an earlier date. He submits that there has been substantial delay in payment of the
CWP No.15475 of 2007 2
retiral dues of the petitioner, hence the respondents be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum.
Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner have not been delayed because the petitioner was required to submit her pensionery papers six months prior to her retirement but the relevant papers were submitted on 17th May, 2007 i.e. after retirement of the petitioner and hence she is not entitled to any interest.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that as the petitioner had submitted her papers relating to pensionery benefits after her retirement i.e. on 17th May, 2007, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the respondents.
In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the retiral dues.
The writ petition is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 02, 2008 'rajpal'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on retiral dues when pensionery papers were submitted after her retirement.
Whether the delay in payment of pensionary benefits can be attributed to the respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pritam Kaur
The State of Punjab
Ashutosh Mohunta
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
