Civil Writ Petition No.15984 of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 21.5.2011
Inder Singh Ziledar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Kohal Dev, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajiv Prashad, DAG Haryana for the respondents.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersenessly, the facts, which require to be noticed for a limited
purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and
emanating from the record, are that, having rendered a successful service for a
period of 28 years, the petitioner retired from his service as Ziledar w.e.f.
31.3.1991, from the office of Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Irrigation
Branch, Sonepat (respondent No.4), by virtue of office order dated 8.3.1991
(Annexure P2).
2. The petitioner claimed that although he requested to make the entire
payment of amount of his pensionary benefits, but the same were not released by
the respondents. According to the petitioner, he remained on leave with effect
from 18.1.1989 to 6.2.1989 on account of admission of his son in Rajindra Eye
Hospital, New Delhi. Thereafter, he himself fell sick and remained admitted in
Civil Hospital with effect from 7.2.1989 to 31.3.1991. He submitted all the
relevant medical certificates to the authorities for sanction of medical leave, but in
vain. The respondents did not pay him the amount of pensionary benefits, despite
representation/reminders (Annexures P3 to P6) in this context.
3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ
petition in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release his
Civil Writ Petition No.15984 of 1992 2
pensionary benefits alongwith market rate interest, invoking the provisions of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia pleading that although he retired
from service w.e.f. 31.3.1991, but the amount of pensionary benefits was not
released in his favour by the respondents, without any legal basis. On the basis of
aforesaid allegations, the petitioner claimed the release of amount of retiral
benefits alongwith interest, in the manner depicted hereinabove.
4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed their
joint written statement, in which, the factual matrix of period of service and date of
his retirement is admitted. However, it was claimed that petitioner remained on
long leave and he was required to submit his consolidated leave application for
sanction. Since he had not submitted the leave application, so, his case of sanction
of leave could not be processed. The final payment of GPF amounting to `
61,111/- was stated to have been released to him, by way of letter dated 24.7.1991
(Annexure R1). The other benefits were also stated to have been paid to the
petitioner, by means of letter dated 17.12.1992 (Annexure R2). The remaining
benefits could not be released on account of non-sanction and regularization of his
period of leave. In all, the respondents pleaded that almost all the retiral benefits
were already released and delay in releasing the remaining amount occurred on
account of non-sanction of leave of the petitioner. It will not be out of place to
mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations
contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and
reiterating the pleadings of the writ petition, the petitioner filed the replication,
wherein, it was mentioned that neither the consolidated leave application was
required under the rules nor the respondents have ever asked him to submit any
such application. Moreover, it was for the appropriate authority to sanction the
leave and petitioner cannot be blamed in this respect. He claimed his pensionary
benefits, in view of instructions dated 28.4.1992 as well. That is how I am seized
Civil Writ Petition No.15984 of 1992 3
of the matter.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone
through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the
entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this
context.
7. As is evident from the record, that the petitioner retired from his
service w.e.f. 31.3.1991, from the office of respondent No.4, vide office order
dated 8.3.1991 (Annexure P2). Although the petitioner requested the respondents
to make the payment of amount of his pensionary benefits, but the same were not
released to him, despite representation/reminders (Annexures P3 to P6) and
recommendations (Annexures P7 and P8) of Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department. According to the petitioner, he remained on leave with effect from
18.1.1989 to 6.2.1989 on account of admission of his son in Rajindra Eye Hospital,
New Delhi. Thereafter, he himself fell sick and remained admitted in Civil
Hospital with effect from 7.2.1989 to 31.3.1991. The explanation put forth by the
respondents in this behalf that delay in releasing the benefits occurred on account
of non-sanction of leave of the petitioner, is not tenable. Such delay cannot
possibly be attributed to the petitioner. It is for the competent authority to promptly
take a decision, with regard to the sanction of leave and petitioner cannot possibly
be blamed for it. The date of retirement of an employee is known to the employer
even on the day he joined the service.
8. Therefore, the respondents were duty bound to make payment of the
retiral benefits to the petitioner immediately when they became due. It is now well
settled proposition of law that the benefits accrued to an employee in lieu of his
retirement are no longer the matters of any bounty to be distributed by the
Government, but are valuable rights and property acquired by hard earned means
and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously
and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest, in
Civil Writ Petition No.15984 of 1992 4
view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gorakhpur University
and others v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others AIR 2001 Supreme Court
2433, wherein, it was also ruled that “withholding of quarters allotted, while in
service, even after retirement without vacating the same is not a valid ground to
withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with
reference to amounts due towards Provident Fund, which is rendered immune from
attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the
employee.”
9. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgments of this
Court in cases A.S.Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others 1997(4) SLR 617
(FB), Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1997(4) SLR 287 and Sambhu
Nath Sharma v. State of Punjab and another 1999(3) RSJ 159. The law laid down
in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully applicable to the facts of the
present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
10. In view of the legal position, the respondents could not delay the
payment of amount of retiral benefits to the petitioner on the ground of non-
sanction of leave by them. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the
interest on the delayed payment of amount, in lieu of his retiral benefits, in the
obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted.
Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed to make the payment of retiral
benefits (if not already paid) to the petitioner. He would also be entitled to the
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the delayed payment, to be calculated,
after six months from the date of his retirement.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
21.5.2011 Judge
AS
Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No