Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2275 (PNJ)

Thana Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-08-10

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest on the delayed payment. 2. It transpires that the petitioner joined the respondent-Jail department on 17.10.1974 as a Warden. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Warden. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement from service on 31.03.2008 while serving as a Head Warden in the office of Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar. Since retiral benefits were not paid, the petitioner had to approach this Court by way of filing this petition. 3. Learned counsel contends that it is only after filing of the petition and rather filing of reply by the respondents, the pensionary benefits have been released. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is entitled to payment of interest on delayed payment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner had been posted at various places. Objections were raised by the Accountant General, Punjab which were satisfied by the department. The retiral benefits have now been released. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. The reply does not indicate as to under what circumstances petitioner can be held liable and responsible for delay in release of retiral benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner failed in supplying documents to the respondents on account of which the delay occurred. 7. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for delay on account of intra-department communications and requirements. 8. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondents have been enjoying the fruits of the money that was due to be paid to the petitioner by way of pensionary benefits. In any case, it is very harsh and hard for a person to survive without any income/pension. The petitioner has earned the pension, having served the respondent-department w.e.f. 1974 till 2008. The respondents, however, without caring for the hardship faced by the petitioner, delayed release of retiral benefits on account of arbitrary action and in total disregard to the rightful and timely claim of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has earned the pension, having served the respondent-department w.e.f. 1974 till 2008. The respondents, however, without caring for the hardship faced by the petitioner, delayed release of retiral benefits on account of arbitrary action and in total disregard to the rightful and timely claim of the petitioner. 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, I find that delay is to be calculated w.e.f. 6 months of voluntary retirement of the petitioner viz. 31.03.2008. 10. The respondents, under the circumstances, are directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on delayed payment w.e.f. 01.10.2008. 11. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. Petition disposed of.