Allowed

Romila Goyal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2010CWP/10500/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a CWP filed under Articles 226 and 227, a retired employee sought mandamus directing the State of Punjab to pay interest on delayed retiral benefits. The Court allowed the petition, holding that intradepartmental delays cannot justify benefit retention without fault on the employee's part.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 21.05.2008 on retiral benefits paid thereafter within two months.

Romila Goyal Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 10500 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10500 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 12, 2010

¶5

Dr. Romila Goyal

¶6

.........PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

Present: Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payment of retiral benefits.

¶15

The admitted facts are that the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement on 01.10.2006. The petitioner was relieved on 07.02.2007. The petitioner applied for retiral benefits on 22.11.2007.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that certain retiral benefits were released in the year 2007 itself. Some payments, however, were made late. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that there were serious allegations against the petitioner of doing private practice.

¶17

On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the

¶18

CWP No. 10500 of 2009

¶19

¶20

respondent concedes that no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and there were no departmental inquiries pending or concluded, which would give a right to the respondents not to release retiral benefits.

¶21

I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 6. Ordinarily, an employee is required to initiate papers for release of pensionary benefits six months before retirement. In the case in hand, the petitioner applied for release of retiral benefits on 22.11.2007.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly contends that the delay in release of retiral benefits may be taken into account w.e.f. 21.05.2008 i.e. six months of the application made by the petitioner for release of retiral benefits viz. 22.11.2007.

¶23

In the reply, the respondents have made reference to intradepartment communication. In my considered opinion, the rights of the petitioner to release of retiral benefits cannot be delayed on account of intradepartment communication. The respondents have not pointed out in any manner the fault of the petitioner in causing delay. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits.

¶24

This petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 21.05.2008 on the retiral benefits paid thereafter. The interest shall be paid within a period of 2 months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶25

12.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE

¶26

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶27

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Romila Goyal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romila Goyal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hilal Ahmad Bhatt Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jasvir Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.

Raj Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Usha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Anr.