Disposed

Ram Kumar Goel v. Rajan Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2009COCP/344/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed contempt proceedings for non-payment of pension ordered within three months. Court found reserve had been made to instalment beyond time due to official process, though no extension was sought. Petitioner awarded Rs.10,000 as compensation decree discharged.

What did the court decide?

Present petition disposed of; respondents directed to pay petitioner Rs.10,000 as compensation within one month.

Ram Kumar Goel Vs Rajan Kumar Gupta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No. 344 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 23, 2009

Ram Kumar Goyal

....Petitioner

Versus

Rajan Kumar Gupta and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate

¶10

Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

On 28.7.2008 while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order dated 20.11.2006 vide which the claim of the petitioner to get pension on superannuation had been rejected. Accordingly, directions were issued to the respondents to release the amount of pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months. The Bench also noted the stand of the petitioner that in case the amount was released to him within the stipulated period, he would not claim any interest thereon.

¶13

Claiming that the retiral benefits had not been paid to him in terms of the order dated 28.7.2008, although the stipulated period of three months had already expired, the petitioner filed the present petition with a prayer for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶14

C.O.C.P. No. 344 of 2009 -2-

¶15

Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent No.2. In paras 2 and 3 of the same, it has been stated that after collecting the relevant information/record from concerned school management and District Education Officer, pensionary benefits were approved by the Department on 14.1.2009 and Pension Payment Orders issued on 23.1.2009. After sanctioning the pensionary benefits, budget for payment of pension along with arrears of pension for the period from 1.7.1999 to 28.2.2009 amounting to Rs.5,28,952/was released to the concerned District Education Officer along with all other pensioners of concerned District vide memo. No. 7/4-2008 Pen.II(3) dated 10.3.2009. The pension has been disbursed to the petitioner through school management on 20.3.2009 as per the established procedure. The petitioner executed a receipt dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure R-2) vouchsafing the fact that he has received the aforementioned amount on account of pension/family pension for the relevant period.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the petitioner has since received the pensionary benefits but according to him these benefits were to be released within a period of three months from 28.7.2008. As the payment has been made to the petitioner only on 20.3.2009, the petitioner be also paid interest on the aforementioned amount.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the pensionary benefits could be released only after approving the benefits on the basis of the relevant record. Necessary steps were initiated by the Department but due to some official process the pensionary benefits were approved by the Department only on 14.1.2009 and the Pension Payment Orders issued on 23.1.2009.

¶18

C.O.C.P. No. 344 of 2009 -3-

¶19

Pursuant thereto the payment was released to the petitioner on 20.3.2009. Therefore, there was no deliberate, intentional and wilfull defiance of the order passed by this Court on 28.7.2008.

¶20

Once the Division Bench had observed in its order regarding payment of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from 28.7.2008, the respondents were required to comply with the same within the stipulated period. In case the respondents had found it difficult to do so within the prescribed time, they could have filed an application for extension of time. However, no such application was filed. Under these circumstances, the objection to the claim made by the petitioner for the grant of interest on the pensionary amount which was paid after the expiry of the stipulated period of three months from 28.7.2008 cannot be sustained. However, instead of directing the respondents to pay the interest, they can be required to compensate the petitioner by paying him an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs.

¶21

In view of the fact that the pensionary benefits have since been released to the petitioner, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged.

¶22

However, the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner so as to compensate him for the delay caused in making the payment. The said amount be paid to the petitioner within one month from today.

¶23

April 23, 2009 ajay-1

Ram Kumar Goel v. Rajan Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Goel v. Rajan Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurjit Singh Vs Megh Raj and Anr.

Chanchal Rani Vs Rameshinder Singh & Anor.

Subhash Chander Vs Anil Rao and Anr,.

Vedpal Vs Om Chander and Ors.

Darshan Ram @ Darshan Singh Vs Neelima Shangla

Monu Vs Navdeep Singh and Ors.