Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1681 (PNJ)

Gurbachan Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-12-01

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2012
Augustine George Masih, J. (ORAL);— 1. Petitioner is claiming interest on the delayed payments of pension, DCRG, leave encashment and other retiral benefits in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of R.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RSJ 318. There was a dispute with regard to the submission of the pension papers by the petitioner and for resolving the said issue, this Court had, vide order dated 17.09.2012, passed the following order:- “It has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the complete case of the petitioner for grant of pension and other benefits was sent by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute (Women), Kurukshetra, Haryana-respondent No. 3 to the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana respondent No. 2 in the month of February, 2009 through registered post. He further points out that in preliminary submission No. 1 of the reply filed, respondents have stated that the petitioner had submitted his pension papers on 18.11.2010 whereas it has subsequently been stated that the pension papers were submitted by the petitioner in February, 2010, which were forwarded by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 on 10.3.2010 which is contradictory. In the light of the above submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, a direction is issued to respondent No. 3-Principal, Industrial Training Institute (Women), Kurukshetra, Haryana, to file a specific affidavit detailing therein the date on which the pension case of the petitioner was forwarded by him at the first instance to the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2. The said affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks. List for further consideration on 1.12.2012. Copy of the order be given dasti to the State counsel under the signatures of the Special Secretary of the Bench.” 2. In compliance with the said order, although any affidavit has not been filed but the original records have been produced by the counsel for the State. A perusal of the same indicates that the petitioner did submit his pension papers well in time prior to his retirement. An explanation has been put forth by the counsel for the respondents that there were certain objections put up by the head office, which were subsequently removed and the pension papers resubmitted, on which basis, the pension has been released to the petitioner subsequently. An explanation has been put forth by the counsel for the respondents that there were certain objections put up by the head office, which were subsequently removed and the pension papers resubmitted, on which basis, the pension has been released to the petitioner subsequently. He contends that for this delay, department cannot be held responsible and no interest can be granted to the petitioner. 3. This contention of the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that it is the responsibility of the department to firstly check the pension papers when a case is submitted for the said purpose whether the same is complete or not and if there is any objection, the same should be removed before submitting it to the head office for release of the retiral benefits. Delay in processing of the case in such circumstances cannot be attributed to an employee as it is the responsibility of the respondents to complete the case before it is submitted to the higher authorities or the competent authority for grant of retiral benefits. The ratio of the judgment in R.S. Randhawa's case (supra), applies to the present case in all fours and, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to interest on delayed payments, which is assessed at 9% from the date of accrual till the date of disbursement. The said interest be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.