IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 CWP-15377-2019 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 Surender Singh .....Petitioner(s)

Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for Ms. Monika Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to extend him benefit of 2^nd and 3^rd Assured Career Progression apart from interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits.

2. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016. He was paid DCRG, commutation of pension and arrears of pension on 22.02.2018. The leave encashment was paid on 29.11.2016 and Gross Provident Fund was paid on 06.12.2016. There is no delay in making payment of leave encashment, GPF, however, there is delay in making payment of DCRG, commutation of pension and arrears of pension. A total sum of Rs.16,45,266/- was paid under heading DCRG, commutation of pension and arrears of pension.

3. Mr. Yadav submits that he confines his prayer to interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.

4. Ms. Anju Sharma expressed her inability to controvert petitioner's entitlement to interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.

5. A Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa, Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 705 has adverted with an identical issue and held that an employee normally would be paid retiral benefits within two months and in case of payment beyond two months, he shall be entitled to interest. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:

“9. 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 case [1985 (2) L.L.N. 18] (vide supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12 per cent unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18 per cent.”

6. The Apex Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44 has clearly held that an employee can claim interest in terms of Part III of Constitution of India. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:

“13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on 30-6-1998. It is also undisputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in government service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge- sheets/show-cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr Quraishi against whom serious allegations of malpractices and misconduct had been levelled by the appellant which result