Disposed

Mam Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2024CWP/10277/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Transport Department driver sought interest on retiral benefits paid years after his dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. Citing precedent that pensionary benefits are property and delay attracts interest, the court directed payment of interest at 6% per annum, with gratuity interest from the due date, payable within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mam Chand Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP-10277-2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

984 CWP-10277-2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.12.202 4

Mam Chand

...Petitio n er

Versus

State of Haryan a and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶11

Present : M r . R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with M r . Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocat e , for the petitioner.

¶12

M r . Tapan Kumar DAG, Haryana. M r . Harneet Singh Oberoi, Advoc a te, for respondent No.3.

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

1. Pr a yer made in the present petitio n is for the grant of interest wh i ch accrued on acc o unt of delayed payment of retir a l benefits of the petitioner.

¶15

Th e petitioner, who was worki n g as a Driver in the Trans p ort Department, w a s dismissed from service on 1 9 .07.2006, however, the said or d er having been assailed and the matter having bee n remanded for reconsideration, t he same was con v erted into compulsory retire m ent w.e.f. 19.07.2006, vide or d er dated 15.12.20 0 9 (Annexure P-2). However, g r atuity amounting to Rs.1,77,514/was paid on 28.09.2010, even though as held i n Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab , 1992( 2 ) S.C.T. 817 that in case o f dismissal, there was no le g al justification to w ithhold the same, the claim t o it being his own property wh i ch

¶16

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP-10277-2011

¶19

was kept in trus t with the government.

¶20

Le a ve encashment amounting to Rs.1,46,154/- was paid on 16.04.2010, GIS amounting to Rs.15,360/- o n 11.06.2010, GPF amounting to Rs.4,91,130/- o n 18.03.2010 and 07.06.201 0 , and commutation of pens i on amounting to R s .1,98,721/- on 08.08.2011. 4. Le a rned State counsel submits t h at as per the instructions/rules, a period of three months has been prescribed f or the release of retiral bene f its, however, is un a ble to give any plausible expl a nation for the belated payment of amount.

¶21

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. M.

¶22

Padmanabhan Nair¹ , held that, “ Pension and g ratuity are no longer any bount y to be distributed b y the Government to its empl o yees on their retirement but h a ve become, under the decisions of this Court, va l uable rights and property in t h eir hands and any culpable delay in settlement a nd disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest a t the current market rate till act u al

¶23

payment.”

¶24

Fu l l Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab and others² , held t h at an employee would be entit l ed to be compensated by grant i ng interest by the S tate on account of delayed disb u rsal of retiral benefits. In Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of UP³ , it was ruled that i n case there is no justification o r

¶25

1 (1985) 1 SCC 429 .

¶26

2 1997(3) SCT 46 8 .

¶27

3 2001 (9) SCC 687.

¶28

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶29

-3-

¶30

CWP-10277-2011

¶31

reason for dela y ed payment of retiral benefits, i nterest would be liable to be p a id, while this Cour t in J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana⁴ , observed that, the inte r est has to be given to an employee where an amo u nt belonging to him, was retai n ed and utilized by t he respondents, has been releas e d on a later date.

¶32

Th e delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, a treasured ri g ht, entitles the peti t ioner to interest thereon, havin g been deprived of the amount w ith which, the re s pondents unjustly enriched t h emselves, which is by way of compensation a n d not penalty.

¶33

8. In view of the above, the prese n t petition stands disposed of by directing the re s pondents to pay the interest to t he petitioner at the rate of 6% p er annum on the r e tiral benefits 03 months from t he date of order dated 15.12.2 0 09 but for gratuity which would carry the said in t erest from the date it fell due till released. Needf u l be done within a period of three months.

¶34

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶35

10.12.2024 parveen kumar
Whether sp eaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
Whether re portable	: Yes	/ No

¶36

4 2014(13) RCR ( C ivil) 355.

¶37

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.12.16 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Mam Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mam Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupinder Jangu Vs Union of India and Others

Mehar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manoj Diwakar Desphpande Vs Union of India and Ors.

Seema and Another Vs National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra and Another

Dhoom Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Phool Pati Vs State of Haryana and Others