PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.D.Anand, J.
State Of Punjab
Versus
Jagir Singh
RSA No. 2933 of 2007,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
Interest - Delayed Retiral Benefits - The court upheld the award of interest at 18% on delayed retiral benefits, emphasizing the failure to start the process for finalization of pension papers in a timely manner and the obligation of the state as an employer to pay interest for delayed disbursement.
Fact of the Case:
The court found the appellants liable to pay interest at 18% on delayed retiral benefits payable to the plaintiff-respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the failure to start the process for finalization of pension papers in a timely manner and the obligation of the state as an employer to pay interest for delayed disbursement.
Issues: Dispute over the rate of interest awarded on delayed retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to start the process for finalization of pension papers in a timely manner and the obligation of the state as an employer to pay interest for delayed disbursement influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the award of interest at 18% on delayed retiral benefits.
S.D.Anand, J.
1. The learned Trial and also the learned First Appellate Court recorded a finding that the appellants are liable to pay interest @ 18% on the delayed retiral benefits which were payable to the plaintiff-respondent.
2. Though the learned Additional A.G. does not dispute that there was delay in the payment of the retiral benefits, he has a grievance that the rate of interest awarded is on the excessive side.
3. The plea is bereft of merit. There are rules on the point that process for the finalisation of the pension papers has to be started few months before the date of retirement. The needful was concededly not done in the present case and all the items of retirement benefits were paid after delay. State is a model employer and it ought not to be heard to grudge payment of interest on account of delay in disbursement thereof.
4. Even if there was any enquiry pending against the respondent at the time of retirement, the appellants at best could have withheld a reasonable part of the gratuity payable to him. There was no justification whatsoever to withhold the amount of GPF and leave encashment. Even 100% of the provisional pension ought to have been released to him in the absence of an order withholding any part thereof. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.