Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Hira Lal Karakara – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-602 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate for Ms. Snigdha Sood, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Delay in releasing retrial benefits entitles the retiree to interest, as established by precedent.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of mandamus for release of retrial benefits - Petitioner retired on 31.10.2022; retrial dues delayed - Court held that delay in payment entitles petitioner to interest @ 6% per annum from 01.01.2023 until payment. (Paras 4, 8, 10)

(B) Interest on delayed payment - Full Bench ruling in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab establishes entitlement to interest for inordinate delay in disbursement of retirement benefits. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, sought a writ for the release of retrial benefits after delays in payment despite multiple representations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in releasing retrial benefits was unjustifiable and directed payment of interest.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interest due to the delay in releasing retrial benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in payment of retrial benefits without justification entitles the retiree to interest, emphasizing the duty of the State to ensure timely disbursement.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retrial benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk/Junior in Municipal Corporation, Abohar and worked from 29.10.1993 to 11.09.2014 and 06.11.2014 to 17.03.2016. Thereafter, he was posted as Junior Assistant at Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2022. When the retrial dues of the petitioner were not released, he made various representations dated 07.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 23.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 to the respondents for releasing his retrial dues but to no avail. Hence this petition.

3. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in the Court which is taken on record. In the said reply, it has been averred as under :-

"xx xx xx xx xx

6. That it is further submitted here that after the retirement of the petitioner, the answering respondent disbursed his pensionary and retirement benefits. It is apposite to mention here that the total retrial benefits including medical allowance amounting to Rs. 18,32,817/- was disbursed to the petitioner vide cheque No.164834 dated 31.10.2022 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, vide cheque No.080188 dated 02.03.2023 amounting to Rs. 1,76,228/-, cheque amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, vide cheque No.082325 dated 03.04.2023 amounting Rs. 12,87,202/- and vide cheque No.539854 dated 17.05.2023 amounting to Rs. 2,19,387/-.

xx xx xx xx xx"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2022 and since the retrial dues of the petitioner have been released after a considerable delay, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the same in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and J.S. Cheema v. State of Haryana : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that since the whole amount of retrial dues has already been paid to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant documents.

7. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retrial benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement. Moreover, a perusal of reply filed by the respondent No.2 shows that although the retrial dues of the petitioner have been released, however, the same have been released after a considerable delay and no explanation has been furnished for not releasing the same at the time of retirement or within a reasonable time thereafter.

8. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of said judgment is as under:-

"Since a government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retiree in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document