Allowed

Santosh Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2023CWP/19514/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought release of enhanced family pension arrears and interest. The court acknowledged the entitlement to arrears but noted only interest for the delay period was undisputed, directing the Treasury Officer to pay the interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay interest at 9% per annum on the delayed pension amount from 05.10.2015 to 19.09.2017.

Santosh Devi Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

C.W.P. No. 19514 of 2017 Date of decision: 09.01.2023

Santosh Devi

......petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & ors

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

Mr.Arvind Rajotia, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶12

¶13

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the

¶15

issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to immediately release enhanced pension and its arrears with 18% interest, which has not been released w.e.f. 27.08.2011 by the Treasury Office, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Accountant General (A&E), Haryana has already endorsed the claim of the petitioner with regard to the family pension and its arrears w.e.f. 27.08.2011, which has not been credited to the account of the

¶17

ANITA DEVI 2023.01.11 15.48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

C.W.P. No. 19514 of 2017

¶19

-2-

¶20

petitioner. It appears from the stand taken by the official respondents and the bank/ respondent No.5 that the petitioner is entitled for enhanced family pension w.e.f. 27.08.2011 to 27.08.2014, but the official respondents and respondent No.5bank are denying their liability to pay the interest. The arrears of enhanced pension have already been released, but the interest component w.e.f. 27.08.2011 till payment of arrears has not been paid so far.

¶21

Admittedly, during the period from 27.08.2011 to 27.08.2014, the petitioner was being paid family pension through Punjab National Bank. Perusal of the letter dated 05.10.2015 issued by the office of Accountant General (A&E), Haryana to the Treasury Officer, Sonepat would show that as per Pension Rules of the Finance Department, Government of Haryana, the family pension is due till 27.08.2014. If the family pension has not been released till date then release the pension due to the petitioner till 27.08.2014 under information to that office. After issuance of the aforesaid letter, the Treasury Officer, Sonepat was under legal obligation to do the needful in the context of releasing arrears of enhanced family pension w.e.f. 27.08.2011 to 27.08.2014. Since the arrears have been released only on 19.09.2017, therefore, for the delayed period, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from

¶22

ANITA DEVI 2023.01.11 15.48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶23

-3-

¶24

C.W.P. No. 19514 of 2017

¶25

05.10.2015 to 19.09.2017. The amount towards interest shall be paid by the respondent No.3 at the first instance with a liberty to fix the responsibility vis-a-vis liability of the respondent No.5

¶26

and act in accordance with law thereafter.

¶27

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶29

January 09, 2023 anita

¶30

whether speaking/non speaking yes/no whether reportable/non reportable yes/no

¶31

ANITA DEVI 2023.01.11 15.48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Santosh Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner Punjab and Another

Ravi Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Sunil Vs State of Haryana and Another

Talvir Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Anr.

Saroj Vs Chief Administrator and Anr.

Som Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.