Last Updated on June 4, 2024 by Satish Mishra
This post talks about pension case in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh where it is held amount need to be released within 2 months from retirement else interest to be paid.
The following article analyses a case revolving around pensionary benefits. The case was petitioned by one Satpal Singh (petitioner) against the State of Punjab and Others (Respondents) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the 16th of February 2021. This case was presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi.
One must refer to the following Cases below to know more about the issues in pension cases before Punjab and Haryana High Court:
1 CWP No. 11373 of 2012- Rattan Singh and others Versus State of Punjab.
2 Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 July, 2022 in CWP-7695-2016
3 Baljinder Kaur vs State of Haryana & Ors on 25.1.2021 in CWP No. 24430 of 2017
4 Sukhdev Singh vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR.— CWP No.13132 of 2020
5 Rattan Chand & Ors vs BBMB & Anr in CWP 816 of 2002 decided on 10.10.2002
6 Nirmal Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors in CWP no. 26553 of 2016 decided on 21.8.2019
Also Read- OLD PENSION SCHEME DOCTYPES: PUNJAB
Recently in a court ruling of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri ,the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.10 Lakh on a Bank for holding retiral benefits of its employee for 40 years over allegations of embezzlement and violating natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. You can read the story here on LiveLaw.
Division Bench of High Court Chandigarh has already considered as to whether the weak financial position can be taken as a ground to decline the pensionary benefits to the retired employees. In case titled as “Ram Karan Vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another”, 2005(3) PLR 580, wherein it has been held that keeping in view the fact that the State is a welfare State and the retired employees have no other source of income to lead a dignified life, the retiral benefits cannot be declined or withheld on account of financial difficulty.
Retired employees have to support their life on the retiral benefits only. A retired employee can only lead a dignified life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in case he/she is allowed the retiral benefits in time.
Also Read- Govt Orders on Pension | Principal Accountant General Haryana
Without release of the retiral benefits, no retired employee will be able to lead a dignified life, which will be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Full Bench of High Court Chandigarh in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 has held that employee is entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time after the retirement in case there is no impediment. The reasonable time fixed by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra) is two months after the retirement. In case of the failure of the authority to release the pensionary benefits, employee has been held entitled for interest so as to compensate the employee for the delay.
Also, a co-ordinate bench of High Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 has held that where an amount belonging to an employee has been retained and used by the department, employee will be entitled for interest. (Refer CWP no. 4660/2022)
Recently in CWP no. 17014 of 1998 – Shri Niwas versus HVPN and Ors. Regarding grant of retiral and pensionary benefits pending for Large number of years, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance and Planning Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat , Sector 1 Chandigarh has sought the list of cases before High Court Chandigarh. You can read the circular here.
This analysis may be helpful to those seeking the remedies for unpaid pension and the conditions to claim interest on delayed pensionary payments.
Also Read- Punjab’s 2015 order quashed, pension relief from January 2006
The facts of the case are as follows:
Mr. Satpal Singh the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming that his entire pension amount had not been paid and seeking a direction from the court to the respondents, to pay the pending amount of the pensionary benefits and the subsequent interest due on the pending amount. As per the averments, the petitioner was entitled for a sum of Rs. 11,05,005/-, out of which, Rs. 6,53,938/- was paid and an amount of Rs. 4,51,067/- was still due.
The Respondents in response filed that the individual responsible for payment of the pensionary benefits, that is, Respondent No. 4-Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Mullanpur Dakha, District Ludhiana, states that the petitioner was entitle to a sum of Rs. 10,54,148/- and the same has already been paid to him. The reply as given in para 4 of the 1 of 5 written statement is as under:-
Also Read- Punjab Govt to pay pension to all 214 beneficiaries of 1991 Pension Scheme: SC
“4. That para no. 4 of the writ petition is admitted as correct to the extent that petitioner after his superannuation was entitled to get the pension and all pensionary benefits under the regulations governing his conditions of service from the answering respondent, but it is wrong and denied that till date that the petitioner has not been released his pensionary benefits i.e GPF, Leave Encashment and Gratuity etc. rest of the para is also wrong and denied being false and frivolous. It is worth to mention here that, the amount of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and PPF had already been paid by the answering respondent No.4 to the petitioner from time to time. Answering respondent paid total amount of Rs.9,88,788/- to the petitioner, detail of demand drafts by which, said payment was paid to the petitioner by the answering respondent No.4. Hence, as the balance/due shown by the petitioner in the present petition amounting to Rs.4,51,067/- is wrong and baseless and the said amount was not payable by the answering respondent 2 of 5 No.4 to the petitioner as per law and the petitioner has been wrongly claiming the said amount from the answering respondent on the basis of wrong facts and calculations.”
Also Read- Court relief for retired state govt employees
The respondents in this case attached proof which showcased that the benefits owed to the petitioner were truly different from those claimed by the petitioner and they had been paid in full albeit over a period of time.
The Counsel for the petitioner further argued that regardless of the benefits due to the petitioner being paid in full, the amount was paid after a delay, therefore the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits.
Also Read- Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharampal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 January, 2020
Findings of the Court:
The court found that the chart produced by Respondent No.4 which had evidence to support their statements in the reply quoted above, made it clear that the amount due to the petitioner had been paid in full. In particular, on the date of retirement of the petitioner only Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to him and rest of the total amount of Rs. 10,54,148/- was paid to petitioner starting from March 2016 onwards till September 2020. However, the court also noted that nothing had been mentioned in the reply so as to justify the said delay in releasing of the pensionary benefits. In the absence of any justification given by the respondents, the court held that it has to be held that the delay is to be attributed to the respondents.
Also Read- Department of Welfare of Pensioners Government of Punjab India
The court then referred to the principle set by the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, an employee is entitled for the release of the pensionary benefits within a reasonable time of his/her retirement and the reasonable time fixed by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the aforementioned case of A.S. Randhawa’s case is two months after the retirement and in case of default, it has been held that the employee needs to be compensated by the award of interest. The relevant paragraph of said judgment is as under:-
Also Read- Pension Cases Punjab Haryana High Court Judgments
“Since a government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in 3 of 5 terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the petitioner 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 front 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 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.”
Also Read- Widow eligible for family pension even if she’s convicted of murder: Punjab High Court
In referencing the previously set parameters to the documents presented by the respondents the Court observed that the delay in releasing the amount except an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- released on 31.03.2015, is more than two months from the date of retirement of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered for the grant of interest on the amount, which has been released to the petitioner thereafter.
Also Read- High court verdict favours pensioners of Punjab
Further, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in of J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, has held that where an amount for which an employee was entitled, has been retained and used by the respondents, employee will be entitled for the interest. 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 4 of 5 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 and was being used by it.”
Also Read- Department of Social Security And Women & Child Development- Old Age Pension
In the light of the precedent said by the cases mentioned above the Court held that the amount paid starting from 2nd June 2016 (the delayed payable amount which has been referred to in this article), is retained by the department without valid justification, thus, the petitioner is owed interest on the said delayed release of the pensionary benefits.
Also Read- VED PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed. The claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest on delayed release of payment is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date, the amount became due till the same is released except the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which was released to him on 31.03.2015. Let the amount of interest for which the petitioner becomes entitled under this order be calculated by the respondents within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount so calculated shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 15 days thereafter.
Also Read- MOHAN SINGH ANDORS. V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Service Matter lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur of Punjab Haryana High Court.
This post written by Nankee Arora.
More on 99888-17966.
