JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% per annum from 8.6.1999 to 30.9.2000 on the delayed payment amounting to Rs.1,12,200/-as leave encashment and for the issuance of any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

Brief facts

2. The petitioner joined government service as an Assistant Employment Officer through the Haryana Public Service Commission on 13.12.1976 and was promoted as District Employment Officer on 21.12.1980. The petitioner was prematurely retired by the respondent department on 07.06.1999 vide order dated 04.06.1999. The said order is non-speaking and was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice. After his premature retirement, the respondent department failed to release his retiral benefits, including leave encashment, within the stipulated period. Despite repeated representations, the leave encashment amounting to Rs.1,12,200/- was released only on 27.09.2000, after a delay of more than one year and three months, causing financial hardship to the petitioner.

Contentions

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of premature retirement is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Rule 5.32(a), (b), and (c) of the Civil Services Rules, Volume II, as it was passed without a show-cause notice and without recording any reasons. It is further contended that the delay in releasing leave encashment is wholly unjustified and contrary to government instructions mandating payment within three months of retirement. The petitioner, having been deprived of the timely use of his lawful dues, is entitled to compensation by way of interest.

4. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of this court “A.J. R andhawa v. State of Punjab (1997)117 PLR 6” and other precedents, wherein it has been held that delayed payment of retiral benefits attracts liability for payment of interest and that the plea of limitation is not available to the State in such matters. It is further argued that this Court, in “Moti Ram Gupta v. State of Haryana 1993(1) ESJ page 799”, has held that the State is bound to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on belated payments. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment from 08.06.1999 till the date of actual payment, as denial of the same is violative of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice, equity, and fair play.

Contentions of the State

5. Learned State counsel submits that, without adverting to or conceding the merits of the case and without admitting any illegality in the order of premature retirement, the respondent authorities are willing to grant interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment as a measure of equity. It is contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, and occurred due to administrative reasons. However, in order to put a quietus to the controversy and in deference to the settled legal position regarding delayed release of retiral benefits, the respondents undertake to release interest on the delayed amount in accordance with applicable rules and judicial precedents, without treating the same as a precedent and without prejudice to their rights and contentions in law.

Analysis

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, this Court is deeply conscious of the prolonged and avoidable hardship suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner joined government service on 13.12.1976 and served the respondent State for more than two decades. He was prematurely retired on 07.06.1999. Upon such retirement, his retiral benefits, including leave