The main legal point established is that when an employee's money has been used by the respondents, interest has to be given, especially if the employee has suffered prejudice due to the actions of the department.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) - In the present case, the prayer of the petitioner is for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the certain pensionary benefits, which were withheld by the respondents after the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an FIR registered against the petitioner being FIR No. 16 dated 20.03.2006, which was pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement but the petitioner was found innocent by the competent Court of law vide judgment dated 17.02.2014 (Annexure P-2) and therefore, once the allegations alleged against the petitioner were not proved, the petitioner is entitled for intereston the delayed release of the pensionary benefits.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that the respondents were within jurisdiction to withhold certain pensionary benefits of the petitioner due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings, which admittedly was concluded only on 17.02.2014, after which all the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled for, were released to the petitioner without any delay. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of interest may kindly be declined.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. It is a conceded position that on the date when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2007, there were criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. That being so, it cannot be said that the respondents did not had jurisdiction to withhold his pensionary benefits but as the petitioner was acquitted of the allegations alleged against him in the criminal proceedings and petitioner was found innocent, the pendency of the proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement, cannot come in the way so as to claim the interest on the pensionary benefits.

6. Once the Department alleged allegations against the petitioner and on the basis of those allegations, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and the amount for which the petitioner became entitled for upon his superannuation was withheld, and the Department failed to substantiate those allegations before the competent Court of law, hence, pendency of theproceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent, cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner. The acts which are attributable to the respondent cannot cause prejudice to an employee as firstly by withholding the pensionary benefits on the basis of pendency of the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the Department alleging certain allegations and thereafter, by denying the grant of interest on the delayed payments, despite the fact that the employee was found innocent as the Department concerned failed to prove those allegations.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, once the petitioner is found innocent of the allegations alleged and has suffered prejudice only due to the actions of the respondent-Department as the petitioner was prevented from availing his pensionary benefits upon his retirement for a sufficient long period of time and also petitioner could not use those financial benefits to his benefit, the petitioner becomes entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payments to mitigate the prejudice/hardship suffered by him, which is in consonance of settled principle of law.

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in of J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an amount belonging to an employee, has been retained and used by the respondents, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -

"The jurisprudential basis for gr