R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998(O&M) Date of decision: 6.7. 2009 Punjab State Electricity Board and others ......Appellants Versus Ram Dev .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Riar, Additional A.G.Punjab, for the appellants. Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff -Ram Dev filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-Board to release interest on delayed payment of General Provident Fund (for short 'GPF') and arrears of salary for the last three months along with interest. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.1994. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.1997. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants-Board. R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 2 The case of the parties, as noticed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in para 2 his judgment, reads as under:- “The plaintiff was employed as Executive Engineer with the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as Board). He proceeded on leave after 12.8.1988 due to the ill health of younger brother and under the compelled circumstances he had to make a request to the Board for his pre-mature retirement. He gave notice dated 1.9.1989 for his pre-mature retirement and vide his representation dated 15.12.1989 he made a request to the Board for the release of his salary along with pensionary benefits. He was retired by the Board vide letter dated 23.10.1989 ordering his pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 11.6.1989. The plaintiff-appellants pleaded that the order was illegal as the same was passed with retrospective effect. He was also asked to deposit three months salary in lieu of the notice and sum of Rs.18,865.20 paise was deducted from the arrears of his pay. He also made a request for the release of his GPF and other retirement benefits but the GPF amount was not paid and the Board insisted for the deposit of Rs.3318.50 paise. The amount of Rs.3318.50 paise was deposited by the appellant in the bank. The same amount was also deducted by the Board from his pension R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 3 amount and later on the said amount was refunded. The GPF amount of Rs.1,79,617/- was paid to the plaintiff/appellant in the month of December, 1991, but he was not paid interest and the Board was liable to pay a sum of Rs.93,865.20 paise as interest. He also made a prayer for the recovery of the amount deducted from his pensionary benefits equivalent to three months pay and also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount not paid. A notice was served but to no effect. Hence, the present suit was filed. The defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objection that suit was not maintainable and it was pleaded that the plaintiff was allowed pre-mature retirement w.e.f. 11.6.1989 at his own request. It was denied that the order dated 23.10.1989 was illegal. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff vide his letter dated 1.9.1989 sought pre-mature voluntary retirement with full pensionary benefits admissible as per rules with immediate effect after the expiry of leave due to him. He was accordingly retired with the approval of the competent authority w.e.f. 11.6.1989. He was given full pensionary benefits under rules. Three months notice was pre-requisite for obtaining pre-mature retirement and as such, a sum of Rs.18,865.20 paise was deducted from the amount, R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 4 which was to be paid to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that regarding GPF the plaintiff submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on 5.9.1991 and the GPF amount was paid to him immediately thereafter. According to the plaintiff, the GPF amount was paid in December, 1991 but the Board had taken the plea that a cheque for the payment of Rs.1,79,617/- was issued in favour of the appellant-plaintiff on 19.11.1991. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest for the delayed payment of GPF and was also not entitled to the recovery of the amount, which was deducted in lieu of three months notice. It was further pleaded that under regulation 16.4 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Provident Fund Regulation, 1960 interest could be paid admissible upto the end of the month proceeding that in which the payment was made or upto the end of six months after the month in which the amount had become payable, which ever was earlier provided that the retiree made an application in this behalf as laid down under regulation 32 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Provident Fund Regulation, 1960. It was further averred that since the application was made by the plaintiff-appellant in the prescribed proforma on 5.9.1991. The plaintiff was not entitled to interest due to R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 5 any delay in the payment of the amount.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Relief. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per Rule 3 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules'), an employee who had completed 20 years of qualifying service could seek retirement from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority. As per Section 4 of the Premature Retirement Regulation, in case an employee sought retirement while he was on leave not retiring while on duty, the retirement shall take effect from the date of commencement of the leave. The respondent was on leave up to 11.6.1989. Thereafter, he applied for pre- mature/voluntary retirement on 1.9.1989. Vide order dated 23.10.1989, the respondent was retired w.e.f. 11.6.1989. He was required to deposit three months salary in lieu of three months' notice. The amount of GPF was released to the respondent immediately after he furnished all the formalities on prescribed proforma. Pensionary benefits could only be considered on 5.9.1991 R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 6 and they were released to the respondent within a period of 1 ½ months. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the Rules, an employee could seek pre- mature retirement by giving three months' notice. However, there was no provision that in case three months' notice was not given, he was required to deposit three months' salary in lieu of notice period. In these circumstances, respondent was not required to deposit salary in lieu of three months' notice. Moreover, the request of the respondent for pre-mature retirement was not accepted subject to deposit of salary in lieu of three months' notice. The respondent had requested the appellants to release his pensionary benefits on 15.12.1989. However, the GPF was released after a long delay. In the present case, the respondent was on leave up to 11.6.1989. He applied for extension of leave. However, before the said application could be decided, respondent applied for premature/voluntary retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible as per rules with immediate effect after expiry of leave due to him, vide letter dated 1.9.1989 (Ex.P-2). Admittedly, the request of the respondent was accepted by the appellants and vide order dated 23.10.1989, respondent was prematurely retired w.e.f. 11.6.1989 as per PSEB, Services (Premature Retirement) Regulation, 1982. As per the Rules, respondent could seek pre- R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 7 mature/voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice. As per the Rules, the respondent was not required to deposit three months' pay in lieu of notice period, whereas, as per Section 3 of the Pre- mature Retirement Rules, the appropriate authority in public interest by giving an employee a prior notice of not less then three months can retire an employee on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attains 50 years of age. A proviso has been added to the Rule that where at least three months' notice is not given or notice for period less than three months is given, then the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum in equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of three months, or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of three months. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur rightly held that the appellant had wrongly withheld the payment of salary of three months of the respondent. Moreover, the request of the respondent for pre-mature retirement was not accepted by the appropriate authority subject to deposit of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice. The respondent had made a request to the Board vide letter dated 15.12.1989 (Ex.P-3) for release of pensionary benefits. However, the payment was made to the respondent in December, 1991. Vide letter Ex.P-3, respondent had also requested the Board that in case any formality was required to be completed on his behalf, he may be intimated in this regard. A perusal of letter dated 1.2.1991 R.S.A.No. 1946 of 1998 (O&M) 8 (Ex.P-4) reveals that the Board had written to the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3318.50 so that his GPF could be released to him. In case the said amount was required to be paid by the respondent, the Board could have withheld the same and released the balance amount of GPF to the respondent. However, on this account, the appellants delayed the payment of GPF to the respondent. The stand taken by the appellants that the formalities were completed by the respondent in September, 1991 is not believable because as per letter Ex.P-4, it appears that the respondent had completed all the formalities and the amount of GPF was not released to the respondent on account of disputed amount of Rs.3,318.50, which as per the appellants was required to be deposited by the respondent. The respondent had, thus, been approaching the appellants for release of the amount of GPF but apparently the delay was on the part of the appellants. In these circumstances, the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur had rightly allowed interest to the respondent on account of delayed payment of GPF. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 6, 2009 anita