An employee exonerated in departmental proceedings should not suffer prejudice due to the pendency of those proceedings, and unjust withholding of pensionary benefits and denial of interest on delayed payments to an innocent employee is not permissible.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. Present regular second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Lower Appellate Court by which, the judgement and decree dated 30.10.2019 passed by the trial Court by which, the suit filed by the appellant/respondent was allowed, has been set aside.

2. Certain facts need to be noticed herein for correct appreciation of the controversy in question.

3. Appellant/plaintiff joined the services of the respondent-department on 17.12.1990 and he continued working as such in the respondent-department and ultimately retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012 while working on the post of District Food Supplies Controller. After the retirement of the appellant/plaintiff, all the retiral benefits for which, the appellant-plaintiff was entitled for, were not released to him on the ground that there are departmental proceedings pending against him keeping in view the charge sheet dated 26.12.2011 (Ex.D-3) issued against him. The said charge sheet was taken to its logical end and the same was dropped by the respondent-department vide order dated 28.11.2018 as nothing incriminating was found against the appellant/plaintiff. Thereafter, as the pensionary benefits for which, the appellant/plaintiff was entitled for, were not released to him despite there was no impediment, he filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondent-department to release all his retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment and full pension along with interest.

4. The said suit was contested by the respondent-department and keeping in view the evidence which had come on record that the charge sheet pending against the appellant/plaintiff was dropped by the respondent-department vide order dated 28.11.2018 (Ex.D-3), the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2019 with the direction to the respondent-department to release all the pensionary benefits of the appellant/plaintiff along with interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 of the trial Court, the respondent-department preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which appeal came to be decided vide order dated 13.07.2022. The Lower Appellate Court held that once the retiral benefits for which, the appellant/plaintiff was entitled for, have been released to him by the respondent-department and keeping in view the rules governing the service as there was departmental proceedings pending against the appellant-plaintiff at the relevant time i.e. retirement, the respondent-department was well within its jurisdiction to withhold the pensionary benefits of the appellant/plaintiff and upon conclusion of the said departmental proceedings, the pensionary benefits have already been released to appellant/plaintiff, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff had been rendered infructuous. Judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 of the trial Court granting interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits was set aside. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argues that as the pensionary benefits for which the appellant/plaintiff was entitled for upon his retirement in the year 2012 were withheld by the respondent-department due to the pendency of the charge sheet issued in the year 2011 and the said pensionary benefits were not released immediately upon retirement, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits especially, when the charge sheet was dropped by the respondent-department in November, 2018.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-department submits that once all the pensionary benefits have already been extended to the appellant/plaintiff, question of grant of interest does not arise as the respondent-department was well within its jurisdiction to withhold the pens