Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1263 (PNJ)

Suraj Mal v. State of Haryana

2013-09-19

Ajay Tewari

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral): - This petition has been filed for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant the benefit in view of the letter dated 05.08.2008 and refix the pension of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had retired on 30.06.2005. In the year 2003, the Haryana Government issued a letter and the pay of their employees was refixed, according to which the increments of each employees were reduced and the recovery from the employees was made. The pay of the petitioner was also refixed in view of the letter dated 22.08.2003 and his two increments were reduced and a recovery of Rs.41,574/- was made from the petitioner. Thereafter, some of the employees challenged the said letter and this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.04.2008 set aside the same. Thereafter, by letter dated 05.08.2008 (Annexure P-3), the respondent No.1 directed all the Heads of Departments including the respondents No.2 and 3 to give the benefit of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2008 passed in C.W.P. No.18601 of 2006 to all the similarly situated employees. Thereafter since nothing was done in this regard vis-a-vis the petitioner, he moved a representation on 07.10.2008 which was followed by repeated subsequent representations (Annexures P-5 & P-6). Since no relief was granted to him he ultimately filed the present writ petition on 05.12.2011. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 19.11.2012 (i.e. 4 years & 7 months after the decision of this Court, 4 years & 4 months after the letter Annexure P-3 and 1 year after the filing of the present writ petition) the due benefits were released to the petitioner. In the circumstances, now the only surviving claim of the petitioner is for interest. 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that after the decision of this Court, since the matter related to refixation of all the employees it took time and therefore there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plea of the respondents that there is no negligence on their part is not and cannot be a complete answer. As per him the basic justification for interest is always the fact that money belonging to one person is being put to use by another person. If that is compounded by negligence there may be a claim for even higher interest. As per him the basic justification for interest is always the fact that money belonging to one person is being put to use by another person. If that is compounded by negligence there may be a claim for even higher interest. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported as 1999(2) SCT 817 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion , there is no legal justifications to withhold the amount of GPF payable to the petitioner because what he is claiming is his own property which was kept in trust with the government. That apart, the unequivocal admission made by the respondents about the preparation of documents on the issue of payment of GPF, there does not remain any justification for non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner which must be treated as his property in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court ...............” 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of GPF due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% within a period of one month of the submission of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall have to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum.” 5. In the circumstances, even though the claim for interest with effect from the date of recovery or the date of the decision of this Court may not be justified yet the claim of the learned Assistant Advocate General that they are not liable to pay interest at all is also equally untenable. Keeping in mind the factual matrix and in view of the decision in Gurcharan Singh’s case (supra), I deem it appropriate to grant interest to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.2009 till the date of payment. The date of 01.08.2009 has been specified since it is 1 year after the letter written by the Government itself directing all the Heads of Departments including the respondents No.2 and 3 to give the benefit of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2008 passed in C.W.P. No.18601 of 2006 to all the similarly situated employees. 6. The date of 01.08.2009 has been specified since it is 1 year after the letter written by the Government itself directing all the Heads of Departments including the respondents No.2 and 3 to give the benefit of the judgment and order dated 10.04.2008 passed in C.W.P. No.18601 of 2006 to all the similarly situated employees. 6. Resultantly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 01.08.2009 till the date of payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if this time limit is not adhered to then the petitioner would be entitled to claim the amount/s due with further interest @ 2% p.a. till the date of payment. 7. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. --------0.B.S.0------------