Allowed

Niranjan Singh v. P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2019CWP/13675/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition making a prayer for interest on delayed pension payments due to previous grant of relief. The court directed the respondents to decide the interest claim within three months and release it within two months thereafter if the claim is valid.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to withdraw WP; Respondents directed to decide interest representation within 3 months and disburse within 2 months thereafter.

Niranjan Singh Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CM-10358-CWP-2016 in/and CWP-13675-2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM-10358-CWP-2016 in/and CWP-13675-2009 Date of decision: - 10.09.2019

Niranjan Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present: - Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

CM-10358-CWP-2016

¶16

By this application, the applicant-petitioner is praying for issuance of direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda to furnish the details of the amount paid to the applicantpetitioner on account of EPF and also for disposal/early hearing of the main writ petition for some actual date.

¶17

Keeping in view the facts stated therein, the application is allowed and the main writ petition is taken up today itself.

¶18

CWP-13675-2009

¶19

In the present writ petition, the prayer made by the petitioner is that work charge service be taken into account for computing the

¶20

NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.18 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

CM-10358-CWP-2016 in/and CWP-13675-2009

¶23

pensionary benefits of the petitioner keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in ' Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others', AIR 1988 Punjab 265.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have granted the petitioner the said benefit and revised his pension and pensionary benefits and also have released the arrears, but the petitioner was entitled for the said relief when he superannuated on 31.05.2004, whereas the relief has been granted to the petitioner in May 2019. Counsel prays that the only claim surviving is for interest on the said delayed payments.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner further states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents to claim the said benefit of interest by submitting an appropriate representation keeping in view the law laid down by this Full Bench of this Court in ' A.S. Randhawa Vs . State of Punjab and others , 1997(3) SCT 468, wherein, it has been held that in case there is a delay of more than two months in the release of the pensionary benefits, the employee needs to be compensated by an award of interest. Counsel prays that the representation, which is to be filed by the petitioner, be decided in a time bound manner as the petitioner was already litigating for the last more than 14 years before this Court.

¶26

Keeping in view the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to approach the respondents to claim the interest on the

¶27

NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.18 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CM-10358-CWP-2016 in/and CWP-13675-2009

¶29

-3-

¶30

delayed release of the benefits after the revising of his pensionary benefits by filing an appropriate representation claiming the interest on the same. Further, the respondents are directed that in case any representation is submitted by the petitioner claiming the interest, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by taking into consideration the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa' case (supra) , within a period of three months from the receipt of the said representation. In case after the passing of the appropriate order, the petitioner is found entitled for the grant of interest, the same shall also be released to him within a period of two months thereafter.

¶31

In view of the above, present writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty, as prayed for.

¶32

( HARSIM September 10, 2019 naresh.k	RAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking?	Yes
Whether reportable?	No

¶33

NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.18 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Niranjan Singh v. P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Singh v. P.S.E.B. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Verma Vs State of Hry. & Ors.

Sanjiv Hans Vs State of Punjab and Others

Joginder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Suraj Bhan & Ors. Vs F.C.& Ors.

Lajpat Rai Garg Vs Haryana Backward Classes and Anr.