Partly allowed

Satya Pal v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2013CWP/14588/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding delayed payment of retirement benefits. While noting interest was already granted on General Provident Fund, the Court directed the release of 6% interest on the delayed leave encashment amount.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 6% on the leave encashment amount from the date of accrual till the date of disbursement to be calculated and paid within one month.

Satya Pal Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14588 OF 2012 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: MAY 14, 2013

Dr. Satya Pal

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State.

¶12

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner in the present writ petition is claiming interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

¶15

It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on 31.3.2011. The leave encashment amount was released to him on 17.12.2011. Similarly, the General Provident Fund was released to the petitioner on 2.6.2012. He contends that interest at the rate of 8.6% has been granted on General Provident Fund for the delayed payment but no interest on the amount of leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner for delay in releasing the

¶16

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14588 OF 2012 :{ 2 }:

¶17

said amount. He claims interest @ 12% on the amount of leave encashment.

¶18

Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the amount of General Provident Fund and the leave encashment. He further states that on the General Provident Fund, the statutory interest has already been released to the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any further interest on leave encashment.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

¶20

In the light of the fact that statutory interest has already been paid to the petitioner on the General Provident Fund for the delayed payment, he is not entitled to any further interest thereon. As regards the claim of the petitioner on the delayed payment of leave encashment amount, interest @ 6% be released to the petitioner from the date of accrual till the date of disbursement. This amount be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

May 14, 2013 khurmi

¶23

( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

Satya Pal v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Pal v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Ajay Vs State of Haryana

Rajwant Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Pal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdas Ram Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Mandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.