IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

102+232 LPA-865-2024 (O&M)

Decided on : 26.08.2025 BHANWARI DEVI AND OTHERS . .Appellants Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Sahu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. R. D. Bawa, Advocate, Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate and Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate for the applicant-respondents No. 2 to 6.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

CM-2551-LPA-2025 The prayer in the present application filed by respondents No. 2 to 6 is for placing on record the copy of Award dated 24.06.2020 as Annexure A-1.

Keeping in view the averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Copy of Award dated 24.06.2020 as Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 23262 of 2021 titled as ‘Bhanwari Devi and Others versus State of Haryana and others’ by which, ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 8,31,920/- under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to ‘1923 Act’), has been given to the appellants on account of electrocution of Kuldeep Singh on

11.11.2015.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that firstly, the calculation of the said compensation amount of Rs. 8,31,920/- has not been done properly by the authorities concerned. Further, no benefit of interest has been given to the appellants on the delayed payment of said compensation amount which is causing prejudice to the appellant and the same has not been decided by the learned Single Bench while passing the order dated 11.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6 submits that the claim qua grant of compensation was raised by the appellants only in the year 2020 and the same was decided expeditiously and the benefit of compensation was granted to appellants on 24.06.2020, hence, there has been no delay in disbursing the amount of compensation on the part the respondents so as to allow the claim of the appellants qua grant of interest.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It is a conceded fact that Kuldeep Singh died on 11.11.2015.

The payment of compensation amount has been made to the appellant in accordance to the notification dated 15.07.2019 and as per the said notification, the compensation amount is to be calculated in accordance to the provisions of the 1923 Act.

6. Further, there is no dispute qua the entitlement of the appellants to receive the said compensation amount which amount has been paid by the respondents.

7. The question which is raised before this Court is that whether benefit of interest is to be granted upon the said compensation amount keeping in view the fact that Kuldeep Singh died in the year 2015 and the compensation amount was directed to be released in June, 2020.

8. As per the settled principle of law, settled by this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, wherein it has held that where an amount admissible to an employee, has been retained and used by the employer, upon the release of the said amount, on a later date, the benefit of interest has to be given. The relevant paragraph of J.S. Cheema's case (supra) is as under: -

“The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State