Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 942 (PNJ)

Punjab State v. Shaminder Singh

2005-09-05

M.M.KUMAR

body2005
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. A further direction has been issued to make payment of all the pensionary benefits due. For the aforementioned view, reliance has been placed by both the Courts below on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000(2) R.S.J. 647. 2. The only argument raised by learned State counsel that the interest awarded is on the higher side especially when the plaintiff-respondent is negligent in submitting his pension papers. 3. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the opinior that the view taken by the Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotras case (supra) has been rightly followed and no exception is provided for this Court to interfere in the discretion exercised in awarding the interest in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No question of law warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code has been raised. The appeal is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. The argument that the plaintiff-respondent was negligent and himself has caused the delay cannot be accepted because there is no finding of either of the two Court below to that effect. On the contrary Rule 9.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Volume II deals with the procedure for grant and finalisation of pension. These rules came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.K. Kapoor v. State of Haiyana and Ors. 1992(1) R.S.J. 469. After citing Rules 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9,8 and 9.10 of the Rules, the Division Bench opined as under:- A perusal of statutory Rules would leave no one in doubt that the Government being alive to the hardship that is likely to be caused in the delayed payment of post retiral benefits in no uncertain terms wants the matter to need urgent attention. It has been clearly enjoined upon the authorities to see that the Government servant begins to receive pension on the date it becomes due and, therefore, to deal with the cases of pension by giving high degree of priority to the same. Every Head of Department by virtue of statutory Rules has been directed to undertake the work of preparation of pension employee is due to retire on superannuation. The Head of Office is directed to divide the period of preparatory work of two years in the manner provided in Rule 9.5 and eight months prior to the date of retirement. The Head of Office has necessarily to obtain Form PEN 9 from the Government employee, duly completed. The Pension Sanctioning Authority has necessarily to forward to the Audit Officer Form PEN 9 and Form PEN 1 duly completed with a covering letter in Form PEN 16 alongwith the Service Book of the Government employee fully completed for the verification of his service. Any event which has bearing on the amount of pension admissible has necessarily to be brought to the notice to the Audit Officer promptly and such authority has thereafter to determine the qualifying years of service and the emoluments qualified for pension in accordance with the information available in the official record. After the amount of pension and gratuity have been determined, the Pension Sanctioning Authority has further to take action as enumerated in Rule 10(4). In the ultimate analysis, by way of statutory Rules, it has been settled that every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall, suo moto, be considered by the Administrative Department and where the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, the Department shall make a recommendation to the Administrative Department for the payment of interest. The Government perhaps could not be better than underlining the urgency of dealing with pension cases by framing statutory Rules and by issuing a mandate to the authorities to be very serious in the matter of pension. Perusal of pension Rules would, thus, leave no room for doubt that in case any pensionary benefit is delayed and for which delay there is no justifiable ground whatsoever, the employee would be entitled to interest.... 5. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Perusal of pension Rules would, thus, leave no room for doubt that in case any pensionary benefit is delayed and for which delay there is no justifiable ground whatsoever, the employee would be entitled to interest.... 5. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1999) S.C.C. 438. Therefore, there is no merit in the aforementioned contention raised by the learned State counsel and the same is hereby rejected. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been dismissed, I do not feel any necessity to pass orders on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay.