Allowed

Charanjit Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2017CWP/19179/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, a retired professor, is entitled to interest on delayed retiral benefits. While confirming the benefits were already released, the Court ordered an award of interest at 9% per annum from August 1, 2016, to the actual payment date.

What did the court decide?

Interest @ 9% p.a. on delayed payment(s) from August 01, 2016 to the actual date of payment.

Charanjit Singh Dhillon Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.: 254

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.19179 of 2016 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2017

¶4

Prof. Charanjit Singh Dhillon

¶5

..... PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab & others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶10

PRESENT : - Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Devaki Anand Sullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

¶12

. . .

¶13

Jaspal Singh, J

¶14

By virtue of this civil writ petition, preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release retiral benefits to petitioner, such as pension, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pay, interest of ` 20,098/- on GPF amount alongwith interest @ 18%.

¶15

At the very out set of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of retiral benefits. Accordingly, writ petition has been rendered infructuous as far as grant of retiral

¶16

benefits is concerned.

¶17

Avin Kumar 2017.09.12 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP No.19179 of 2016 [2]

¶19

As regards grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that interest on delayed payment has not been awarded to which the petitioner is legally entitled. A writ in the nature of mandamus is legally maintainable for giving a direction to make the payment where it is justified in view of judgment delivered in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab & others, 1997(3) SCT 468 as well as Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P., 2000(4) SCT 267 . Gist of aforesaid judgment in the case of A.S. Randhawa (supra) is that a writ for direction to pay retiral benefits including interest is maintainable and that pensionary benefits, if released after a delay, entitles the incumbent to interest at the rate of 12%, which may even go upto 18% per annum. In case Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the appeal only on the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, has observed that in case of delay of payment, interest has to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues, in case there is no reason or justification for not making payment. It observed:

¶20

“3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement.

¶21

In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e. 31-8-1997 till the date of payments.”

¶22

Avin Kumar 2017.09.12 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP No.19179 of 2016 [3]

¶24

Similarly, in case Ex. Capt. R.S. Dhull vs. State of Haryana, 1998(2) SCT 729 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the retiree is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the withheld GP Fund and Gratuity etc. from the date the same became payable to him on his attaining the age of superannuation till the date the payment is made to him.

¶25

Adverting to the facts of the case, petitioner joined the respondent – Department of Higher Education, Punjab as Lecturer (Botany) on August 12, 1986 on adhoc basis. His services were regularised w.e.f. October 05, 1995. He retired from service on April 30, 2016 on attaining the age of 60 years by availing the benefit of two years extension in service as per the policy of Punjab Government. However, retiral benefits were sanctioned to him by the office of Accountant General (A&E), Punjab vide its order No.PEN03/2181647999/2016-17/PE/16/10/80109144 dated June 27, 2016. It is a settled principle that grant of interest on the delayed payment is on account of the fact that retiree was unable to enjoy its fruits immediately on his retirement and then a right accrues to him to be compensated and the only way to compensate him is to pay interest for the period of delayed payment. Now, a question arises as to the period in which the retiral benefits should be disbursed to the retiree.

¶26

In case A .S. Randhawa (supra) , the Full Bench of this Court observed that a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the

¶27

Avin Kumar 2017.09.12 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP No.19179 of 2016 [4]

¶29

Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retiree in proper time.

¶30

It is also well settled that proper time for the disbursement of retiral benefits will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed three months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356 ; D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nitran Nigam Ltd., 2014(4) S.C.T. 128 ; A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab (supra) ; J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 355 ; and Manohar Lal vs. State of Punjab & others, 2016(4) SCT 250 as well as judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Sudha Chhipa & others vs. State of M.P. & others, 2014 LIC 2125 . While following the Full Bench decision in the case of A .S. Randhawa (supra) , this Court in Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) Service Cases Today 85 , where there was delay of 16 years in payment of retiral benefits, has awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment.

¶31

Undoubtedly, petitioner stood retired on April 30, 2016 and payment of retiral dues was sanctioned on June 27, 2016. From the reply, it is evident that benefit of arrears of pay on account of awarding of selection grade to the petitioner was passed by the District Treasury

¶32

on February 14, 2017. Payment of leave encashment was passed by the District Treasury, Faridkot on January 11, 2017. At the most, the Avin Kumar respondents could have taken a period of three months from the date of 2017.09.12 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP No.19179 of 2016 [5]

¶34

retirement during which the payment of retiral benefits should have been disbursed to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case in hand, this Court is of the view that grant of interest @ 9% per annum, on the delayed payment after expiry of three months from the date of retirement of petitioner till the payment, is legally and factually justified. Accordingly, this Court awards an interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment(s) w.e.f. August 01, 2016 to actual date of payment, which shall be paid by the respondents after calculating the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶35

9. Disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(Jaspal Singh) August 23, 2017 Judge avin

¶37

Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

¶38

Avin Kumar 2017.09.12 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Charanjit Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh Dhillon v. State of Punjab & 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

Rajbir Singh Alias Raju Vs State of Punjab

Som Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Magadhleen Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Inderjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sohan Biri and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jai Narain Vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.