Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2450 (PNJ)

Simrat Singh Sivan v. State Of Punjab

2006-07-04

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
Judgment J. S. Khehar, J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the release of pensionary benefits as also interest thereon on account of delayed payment of retiral benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that all the retiral benefits have since been released to the petitioner. However, on account of delay in releasing the same, the petitioner should be awarded interest and costs. 3. We have considered the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents, it is averred as under:- "1]. That the petitioner has concealed/misstated the material facts and has not come to this HON BLE Court with clean hands. As such he is not entitled to the relief claimed for. A charge sheet dated 11.3.2003 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 8 of Punishment and Appeal Rules 1970. The petitioner filed the reply to the charge sheet prior to the filing of the present writ petition. This fact was concealed from this HON BLE court. The final payment of General Provident Fund amounting to Rs.78,272/- was released on 26.3.2003 and leave encashment was also released on 29.4.2003 i. e. prior to the filing of the present petition, but the petitioner has concealed this fact also.2]. That as per rule 9.14 (c) Punjab Civil Services Rules vol.-II in case enquiry is pending under Rule 8, gratuity can be withheld. The relevant rule is reproduced as under:- "no gratuity shall be paid to the Government employee until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon. " 4 The 90% provisional pension and 90% Death-cumretirement gratuity has also been sanctioned vide orders dated 1.9.2003 and 20.10.2003 respectively. The pension papers could not be sent to the Accountant general, Punjab because of the pendency of the charge sheet and non-deposit of the pro-rata pensionary liability by the U. T. Administration for the service rendered by the petitioner from 9.12.66 to 12.10.1992 under U. T. Administration. The pension papers were sent to Accountant General, Punjab on 3.12.2003. 5. However, the same were returned by Accountant general, Punjab on 19.12.2003 stating that pension case may be re-submitted after the completion of the enquiry. The pension papers were sent to Accountant General, Punjab on 3.12.2003. 5. However, the same were returned by Accountant general, Punjab on 19.12.2003 stating that pension case may be re-submitted after the completion of the enquiry. It is pertinent to mention here that inquiry is complete and the inquiry report dated 12.12.2003 has been submitted to Respondent No.1 who is a disciplinary authority for taking further action. The time in releasing pensionary benefits was taken due to the reasons explained in parawise reply given below. " 6. In view of the factual position depicted above, we are satisfied that the respondents were not remiss in releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner. In view of the above, we decline the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest and costs. Disposed of accordingly.