Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 356 (PNJ)

Hari Singh v. State of Haryana

2016-01-28

DEEPAK SIBAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Deepak Sibal, J. C.M. No. 652 of 2016 : Application is allowed and additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : The petitioner, who retired as a Technical Assistant from the Department of Agriculture, Government of Haryana, through the present petition, has approached this Court for the grant of interest on his released retiral benefits and arrears of salary. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 28.02.2009, the petitioner sought and got voluntary retirement, but the arrears of pay and retiral benefits, on which he claims interest, were released as under : Detail and Period Amount (in Rs. ) Paid On Arrears of pay for the period from 11.9.90 to 13.1.1991 10, 317/- 12.07.2007 Arrears of pay for the period from 14.1.91 to 31.8.1992 57, 022/- 31.07.2009 Arrears of pay for the period from 1.9.92 to 6.1.1994 3, 618/- 06.06.2011 Arrears of pay for the period from 7.1.94 to 31.3.1998 2,42,976/- 14.12.2010 Arrears of pay for the period from 1.4.98 to 30.9.2005 5,49,788/- 26.02.2011 Arrears of pay for the period from 1.1.06 to 29.2.2008 3,33,661/- 04.05.2011 Arrears of pay for the period from 1.3.08 to 28.2.2009 62,141/- 02.03.2010 Arrears of pay for the period from 1.3.08 to 28.2.2009 1,50,542/- 26.05.2011 Arrears for the period from 1.10.05 to 31.12.2005 26,418/- 15.12.2011 Gratuity amount 4,98,544/- 17.08.2012 Arrears of Pension for the period from 1.3.2009 to 31.7.2012 7,35,490/- 17.08.2012 From the above table, it is clear that there has been delay in the release of arrears of pay and retiral benefits of the petitioner. The only question is whether it is justified ? The stand of the State is that the petitioner had not superannuated but had sought and got voluntary retirement and in spite of several letters sent to him from the years 2009 till 2011, the petitioner did not complete his pension papers, which were completed only on 21.09.2011 and immediately thereafter, on 27.09.2011, the proposal for the grant of retiral benefits was forwarded to the Principal Accountant General, Haryana and the same were released on 17.08.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the aforementioned stand of the State by submitting that the service-book of the petitioner had not been completed by the respondents and it is on that count that the delay occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the aforementioned stand of the State by submitting that the service-book of the petitioner had not been completed by the respondents and it is on that count that the delay occurred. It is further submitted that initially, the pension of the petitioner had wrongly been fixed by the respondents, and therefore, he had not appended his signatures thereto. The fact, that the earlier fixation of pension was wrongly done by the respondents, was a fact duly acknowledged by them, as later, while releasing the pension to the petitioner, the same was done as calculated and claimed by him. Once the respondents have themselves released the pension, as claimed by him, though belatedly, the petitioner could not be faulted for not appending his signatures to the initial wrong fixation of pension. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that there was delay on the part of the respondents in the preparation of the petitioner's service-book and this fact is easily decipherable from the fact that the arrears of pay of the petitioner were released after several decades of their accrual, for which there is no explanation offered. So far as the delay in release of pension is concerned, the respondents, after wrongly calculating the quantum of pension payable to the petitioner, were asking him to append his signatures thereto. The petitioner, objecting to the calculation, did not append his signatures. On his representation, the respondents re-considered the matter and after acknowledging and accepting the rightful claim of the petitioner, released the pension, as claimed by him, though belatedly. Acknowledgment of the petitioner's claim justifies the petitioner's stand and on the other hand, belies the stand of the respondents. It is thus clear that the respondents failed to complete the petitioner's service-book in time and raised unjustifiable objections with regard to the fixation of quantum of pension payable to him. In view of the aforesaid delay, which is attributed to the respondents, the petitioner is held entitled to the payment of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed release of his arrears of pay and retiral benefits. The needful be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.