Allowed

M.R. Bansal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CWP/17611/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted interest on gratuity and commutation of pension withheld inordinate delay to a retired petitioner. The court held that since no charge-sheet or enquiry was pending at retirement, withholding benefits was invalid.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is entitled to interest as per Government instructions dated 20.02.2002; the amount due is to be calculated and released within two months.

M.R. Bansal Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 17611 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No. 17611 of 2010

¶4

Date of Decision : May 15, 2012

M.R.Bansal

.... PETITIONER

Vs.

State of Haryana

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶11

Present : Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the gratuity and commutation of pension along with interest from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner contends that after filing of the writ petition, gratuity and commutation of pension have been released to the petitioner. He, however, contends that on the date of the retirement of the petitioner, there was no charge-sheet or departmental enquiry pending against him which would entitle the respondents to withhold the benefits of gratuity and commutation of pension which the petitioner is entitled to on the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.04.2007. Since the retiral benefits of gratuity and

¶16

CWP No. 17611 of 2010

¶17

¶18

commutation of pension have been released after an inordinate delay, petitioner is entitled to interest thereon and he, accordingly, prays for grant of the same.

¶19

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has made an effort to impress upon this Court that there were enquiries pending against the petitioner with regard to certain discrepancies which had come to the notice in the works executed by him. He refers to the preliminary submissions which find mention in the written statement, which has been filed by the respondents.

¶20

A perusal of the same would show that as a matter of fact, no charge-sheet or departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner on the date of his super-annuation. Whatever references have been made, those are all not related to the petitioner as he had not been ever issued a notice with regard to the said matters and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the retiral dues were rightly withheld by the department, cannot sustain.

¶21

In view of the above, the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted. Petitioner is held entitled to interest as per the Government instructions dated 20.02.2002 (Annexure P-1). The amount due to the petitioner be calculated and released to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶22

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶23

May 15, 2012 pj

¶24

CWP No. 17611 of 2010 3

M.R. Bansal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Bansal v. State of Haryana

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

Kanika Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Harbir Singh Chatha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chaman Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kamlesh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dinesh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shiv Charan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.