Entitlement to interest on delayed release of pensionary benefits and arrears of salary based on the established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) -

CM-2820-C-2004

1. As prayed for, application is allowed.

RSA-1137-2004

2. Present regular second appeal has been filed challenging order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the Lower Appellate Court by which, judgment and decree dated 19.07.2000 of the trial Court by which, relief of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits was granted to the appellantplaintiff, has been set aside and the claim of the appellant for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the financial benefit has been declined.

3. In the present regular second appeal prayer of the appellantplaintiff is that she is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefit to her by the respondent-department and the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court be set aside.

Certain facts need to be mentioned herein so as to appreciate the controversy in a correct perspective.

4. The appellant-plaintiff retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1996 but it is a conceded position that pensionary benefits were paid to her by the respondent-department starting from January, 1998 onwards. It is also a conceded position that there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits but the same were delayed and even the arrears of the new pay scale which were extended to the employees w.e.f 1.1.1996, were paid to the appellant-plaintiff after much delay.

5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that there was no valid justification with the respondent-department to withhold the pensionary benefits of the appellant-plaintiff and granted the benefit of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits and the arrears of salary, which judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19.07.2000 was challenged by the respondent/State before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 11.11.2003 set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2000 of the trial Court on the ground that as the appellant-plaintiff was herself a Drawing and Disbursing Officer and she knew that she is going to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1996 still she submitted her pension papers approximately three months prior to her retirement whereas, the same should have been submitted at least 06 months prior to her date of retirement hence, there is no intentional delay on the part of the respondentdepartment in releasing the pensionary benefits of the appellant-plaintiff hence, the grant of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits to the appellant-plaintiff by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2000 was held to be bad and the said judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. The said order dated 11.11.2003 of the Lower Appellate Court is under challenge in the present regular second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the judgment dated 11.11.2003 has been passed by the Lower Appellate Court without considering the relevant facts that the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits is of approximately two years whereas, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, an employee is entitled for the release of his/her pensionary benefits within a period of two months of his/her retirement in case there is no impediment in the release of the same and as in the present case, there was no impediment, the respondentdepartment was liable to release the pensionary benefits of the appellantplaintiff by 31.08.1996 whereas, the same were released approximately two years after the said date. Hence, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff further submits that even if, it is assumed that pension papers were submitted by the appellant-plaintiff three months pr