R.S.A.No.2197 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.2197 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Housing Board, Haryana and another ......Appellants Versus Sunil Singla .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he joined defendant No.1 on 10.9.1976 as Assistant Engineer. The plaintiff sought voluntary retirement and retired as Executive Engineer on 31.12.2006. However, the plaintiff had not received his retiral dues i.e. gratuity and leave encashment immediately after his retirement. Leave encashment and gratuity were released to the plaintiff on 20.11.2008 and 28.11.2008 after a delay of about two years. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. R.S.A.No.2197 of 2011(O&M) 2 The defendants, in their written statement, averred that there had been no delay in payment of retiral dues to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff had been chargesheeted under Section 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal )Rules 1987 by the Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana vide letter dated 20.6.2002. The plaintiff was placed under suspension on 24.5.2002 and was reinstated in service on 23.2.2003. After enquiry, punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed on the plaintiff vide letter dated 4.11.2004. In appeal, the said order was set aside and the plaintiff was awarded the punishment of simple warning vide order dated 11.3.2005. As, there was no mention in the order dated 11.3.2005 qua payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period, the case was submitted to the Chairperson, who vide order dated 9.9.2005 decided that the plaintiff may be given the arrears of salary for the suspension period but the plaintiff must apply for leave of the kind due qua the suspension period. The plaintiff had failed to apply for leave of the kind due and rather requested the Chairperson to review his order and the said request was declined by the Chairperson as there was no provision for review. The plaintiff preferred revision petition against the said order before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana under Section 72- B of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff was accepted by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana vide order dated 25.6.2008 and it was ordered that the arrears and other consequential benefits for suspension period be advanced to the R.S.A.No.2197 of 2011(O&M) 3 plaintiff. The delay in releasing the retiral benefits to the plaintiff was on account of pendency of the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendants are liable to pay interest on delayed payment to the plaintiff. If so, at what rate? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 67 of the Housing Board Act, 1971 ? OPP 3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued ? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the plaintiff had sought voluntary retirement and retired from service on 31.12.2006. The retiral benefits were paid to the plaintiff on 20.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. The case of the appellants is that the delay had occurred as the matter was pending before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana as R.S.A.No.2197 of 2011(O&M) 4 to whether the plaintiff was entitled to be paid salary for the suspension period or not. However, the said plea was liable to be rejected as the appellants could have paid the retiral benefits to the plaintiff without calculating the salary/ benefits qua the period in dispute. The retiral benefits are liable to be paid to the employee immediately on his retirement. However, the defendants took a casual attitude and did not release the retiral benefits to the plaintiff immediately after his retirement. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2011 anita