Allowed

Sunita Sapra v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2013CWP/22200/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee for delayed release of pension and gratuity benefits. It directed the respondents to pay 6% interest on delayed payments from January 2011 to February 2013.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant 6% interest on delayed payments of regular pension, gratuity and commutation of pension from January 2011 to February 2013.

Sunita Sapra Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 22200 of 2012

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

CWP No. 22200 of 2012

¶6

Date of Decision: September 5, 2013

Sunita Sapra

…..Petitioner

Vs.

UHBVNL and others

…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. P.S. Poonia, Advocate

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner claims that though she retired on October 31, 2010 but the retiral benefits have been released to her in February 2013.

¶19

It is admitted fact that though the petitioner had retired on October 31, 2010 but the retiral benefits of regular pension, gratuity and commutation of pension were released in February 2013. It is also an admitted fact that there was a controversy regarding the grant of annual increment due to the petitioner w.e.f. July 2010 which was with-held on

¶20

Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No. 22200 of 2012

¶22

[2]

¶23

account of petitioner having not cleared the typing test and the Departmental Accounts examination. After granting exemption, the third ACP has by now been granted to the petitioner.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondents it is apparent that on account of controversy regarding the third ACP, there was a reasonable ground for the delay in release of ACP but so far as regular pension, gratuity and commutation of pension is concerned, there is apparently a delay.

¶25

In view of the notification of the State of Haryana issued by Finance Department No.1/2/15201-2FR.11 dated February 20, 2002, and the judgment of R.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab , 1973 (3) RSJ 318 (FB), the petitioner can be granted interest on delayed payment.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant 6% interest on the delayed payments of regular pension, gratuity and commutation of pension from January 2011 to February 2013 considering that period of October 2010 to December 2010 could have been used for the necessary official formalities. The amount of interest after calculations, will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of six months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

September 5, 2013 sanjay

¶28

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶29

Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sunita Sapra v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sapra v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charanjit Singh Vs Iqbal Singh Sandhu and Anr.

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

Vas Dev Vs H.V.P.N.L. and Ors.

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gurmeet Singh Vs Defence Research and Development (Drdo) and Ors.

Sarla Rani Vs Ravneet Kaur