Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 615 (HP)

DINESH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAVINDER NATH KAUSHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

2022-10-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2022
ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% pa on delayed release of retiral benefits as mentioned supra with all other consequential benefits.” 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is aggrieved by impugned action of the respondents whereby they have not released the retiral benefits within time and after making delayed payments, interest thereon has not been paid. After voluntary retirement, the petitioner was entitled for various retiral benefits, however the respondents have released the retiral benefits to him and the same were released as under: S. No. Name of retiral dues Amount Date of release 1. Leave Encashment Rs. 3,04,235/- 22.8.2013 2. Commutation of Pension Rs. 2,86,355/- 21.4.2014 3. Pension -- 21.4.2014 4. GPF Rs. 10,89,517/- 26.6.2014 The petitioner was informed, vide communication, dated 6.6.2014 that an amount of Rs. 10,89,517/- has been credited in his account. On 26.2.2014, GPF payment of the petitioner was released to him and was deposited in the account of another person causing undue financial loss to him. The GPF was released to the petitioner with a delay of about 13 months on 26.6.2014 without any interest for the period from 31.5.2013 to 26.6.2014. 3. Reply to the petition has been filed and it is averred that the delay of some months were caused for the reasons that the finalization of pension cases at various agencies were involved such as Unit, CRO, PAO, CPAO and Bank authorities, so the delay occurred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has not been granted the interest on the delayed payment of GPF amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India has strenuously argued that as the amount was calculated on account of some clerical mistake, which has occurred in the ordinary course of business. 5. Heard. This Court after going through the entire records of the case finds that the petitioner sought premature retirement on 01.06.2013. It is quite clear that death-cum-retiral gratuity, leave encashment, CGEGIS and commutation of pension were paid to the petitioner within three months of his retirement in the following manner: S. No. Dues Amount Bill No. and date 1. Death-cum-retiral gratuity Rs. 3,05,235/- DV No. 16452-53 dated 22.8.2013 2. It is quite clear that death-cum-retiral gratuity, leave encashment, CGEGIS and commutation of pension were paid to the petitioner within three months of his retirement in the following manner: S. No. Dues Amount Bill No. and date 1. Death-cum-retiral gratuity Rs. 3,05,235/- DV No. 16452-53 dated 22.8.2013 2. Leave encashment Rs. 2,05,086/- Paid by PAO on 13.9.2013 3. CGEGIS Rs. 25,518/- Paid by PAO on 13.9.2013 4. Commutation of Pension Rs. 2,86,355/- 2236-39 dated 25.7.2013 As far the GPF amount is concerned, the petitioner did not receive the GPF amount and it was required to be paid within three months from his retirement, but it was paid after approximately eleven months after his retirement. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for interest on account of the delayed payment of GPF i.e. the period of GPF amount of the petitioner was withdrawn from the Accountant General Office, till the time, it was paid to him i.e. 26.6.2014. 6. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of by directing the respondents concerned to pay interest on the GPF amount till the time, it was paid to the petitioner, at the same rate, which was applicable at that time on the GPF amount within a period of four months from today. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.