Allowed

B.R. Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2011CR/2143/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision challenging dismissal of execution petition as satisfied. The court found the executing court failed to provide opportunity to the petitioner to object to calculations regarding commuted pension deduction and interest rates, particularly where state entities charged incorrect rates contrary to the Permanent Pension Order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the executing court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, for deciding it afresh.

B.R. Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2010 Date of Decision: 6.4.2011

B.R.Chaudhary

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present:-Mr. Arvind Singh , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Paramjit Batta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents no. 1 to 4.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA J. ( ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner's grievance is that the executing Court dismissed the execution petition as satisfied without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections to calculations submitted by the respondents and without considering the petitioner's plea that the decree remains unsatisfied.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents could not have deducted the commuted value of the pension from the pension already paid to the petitioner and imposed interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as even as per the Permanent Pension Order (for short “the PPO”), issued by the respondents, they were required to charge simple interest at the rate of 8.1 % per annum . It is submitted that the respondents have no right to deduct the commuted value of the pension, in view of Clause (4) of the PPO dated 22.10.2007. It is further submitted that no opportunity was

¶15

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2010 2

¶16

granted to the petitioner to establish that calculations submitted by the respondents are incorrect.

¶17

Counsel for the State of Haryana, however, submits that as the Civil Court granted interest, to the petitioner, @ 12% per annum, the respondents are naturally entitled to recover amounts paid to the petitioner as commuted pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot rely upon Clause (4) of the PPO as the order has to be read in its entirety.

¶18

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the order passed by the executing court. A perusal of the calculation-sheet prepared by the respondents reveals that while recovering the commuted value of the pension from the petitioner, the respondents have charged interest at the rate of 12% per annum, whereas the PPO requires them to charge interest at the rate of 8.1% per annum. The argument that interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been charged as the decree under execution directed the respondents to release pensionary benefits at the rate of 12% per annum, is untenable. The petitioner was awarded interest at the rate of 12% per for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. The respondents cannot be allowed to charge interest from the petitioner at the rate awarded in the decree. Even otherwise, the question whether the respondents can deduct the value of the commuted pension, already paid to the petitioner, is a matter, that the executing court was required to consider in detail. The executing court has dealt with the matter in a summary manner, without granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner, to rebut the calculations and without considering his objections in their entirety.

¶19

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2010 3

¶20

In view of what has been stated above, the revision is allowed, the order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the executing court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law. This order shall not be construed to be an expression of an opinion on the rights of the parties.

¶21

Parties are are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal on 16.5.2011.

¶22

6.4.2011 VK

¶23

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

B.R. Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R. Chaudhary v. State of Haryana 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

Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

M/S. Cacoon Overseas India Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jinder Khan Vs State of Punjab

Nazar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Savitri Devi Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep and Anr. Vs State of Haryana