The High Court allowed an appeal seeking interest on delayed pensionary benefits after clearance from pending disciplinary charges. The Court held that interest is payable from the date of retirement to the date of payment under applicable Office Memorandum.
Side's interest on delayed retiral benefits calculated at 8% per annum for two months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 80 of 2010
Date of Decision: August 2, 2010
Dr. M.L. Bansal
…Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 25.11.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 17945 of 2009, relegating the appellant to the remedy of filing a civil suit with regard to delay in releasing the pensionary benefits.
It is appropriate to mention that the appellant has approached this Court claiming interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. He has sought pre-mature retirement and
LPA No. 80 of 2010
2
eventually served a three months legal notice dated 10.7.2006. Accordingly, he was given voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2007, subject to the inquiry which was pending under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The charges levelled against the appellant were dropped as there was no complaint, witness and evidence against him. The appellant has claimed that there is delay in making payment of various retiral benefits, which is sought to be explained with the help of the following table:-
| Sr. No. |
Date of retirement |
Pensionary | Date on which pensionary benefit was given |
No. years days pension benefit given |
of and ary was |
Amount paid for the pensionary benefit (Rs.) |
Amount of interest payable on delay payment (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 10/12/2007 | Commuted pension |
10.12.2008 | 1 year | 7,11,315 | 85,358 | |
| 2. | -do- | Gratuity | 10.12.2008 | 1 year | 3,50,000 | 42,000 | |
| 3. | -do- | Earned Leave |
10.09.2008 | 9 month | s | 3,62,200 | 32,598 |
| 4. | -do- | GIS | 10.05.2008 | 6 month | s | 62,000 | 3,720 |
| 5. | -do- | Pension | 10.12.2008 | 1 year installm of 12 |
in ents |
1,95,065 Total |
11,703 1,75,379 |
The appellant made representation dated 18.12.2008 for payment of interest on account of delayed disbursement of pensionary benefits. However, the claim made by him was rejected on the ground that the delay in making payment of pensionary benefits was caused due to pending disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 7 of the Rules. Some proceedings were also taken before the Lokayukta, Haryana.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the
LPA No. 80 of 2010
3
view that the matter is governed by the Office Memorandum dated 20.2.2002, issued by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, on the subject of payment of interest on the delayed retiral benefits. The State of Haryana, inter alia, laid down as under:-
A perusal of the aforesaid para would clearly show that once an employee is steered clear of all the charges then all the retiral benefits due to such an employee should be paid along with interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid instructions. A perusal of the above table shows that gratuity, earned leave, GIS and pension have been paid after a period of six months to one year. Therefore, the delayed payment would bear interest. In support of above proposition reliance may be placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RSJ 318 .
However, no interest can be claimed for commuted amount of pension for obvious reasons. The commutation has been granted on 10.12.2008 for a specified amount. In respect of the delayed period pension has also been given, as is evident from column 5 of the table.
LPA No. 80 of 2010
4
Therefore, no interest with regard to commutation of pension would be payable.
As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal succeeds. The order of the learned Single Judge opining that disputed questions of law would arise is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of interest for delayed period at the rate of 8% per annum. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) August 2, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interest is payable on delayed release of retiral benefits when disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of retirement.
Whether an employee drawn to allege innocence of all charges during盘的iplinary proceedings is entitled to retiral pension along with delay.
Whether the Single Judge's order dismissing the claim with regard to disputed questions of law should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.S. Randhawa v. State of PunjabReferred¶29
R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RSJ 318
Dr. M.L. Bansal
State of Haryana
M.M. Kumar
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
