CWP No.7093 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7093 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2010 Damanjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2, 5 & 6. Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer, for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to disburse all the financial benefits/arrears of family pension, which were admissible to Mohinder Kaur mother of the petitioner, as per PPO No.C/MISC/COR/49/2007 issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that the amount due under the PPO be deposited in his savings account. The petitioner also prayed for interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, wrongly withheld. There is no necessity to go into the controversy raised in this writ petition, as the claim of the petitioner stands admitted and the payment was also released as per PPO on 17.6.2010. CWP No.7093 of 2009 (O&M) -2- This Court on 1.7.2010 passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the respondents states that the PPO has been issued in favour of the petitioner for payment of family pension which was admissible to his mother, namely, Smt. Mahender Kaur. It appears that the arrears of the pension (as per unrevised pay-scales) have also been paid. List for further consideration on 10.09.2010. Meanwhile, since the petitioner was entitled to the family pension till he attained the age of 25 years, let the respondents calculate the entire arrears to which he is entitled to and if there remains any balance, to release the same before the adjourned date. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay-scales have been revised and consequently, the petitioner is also entitled to the payment of 'family pension' as per the revised pay-scales. The respondents No.1 & 2 are, accordingly, directed to issue revised PPO before the next date of hearing.” Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that once PPO dated 30.6.2007 was issued, there was no reason with the respondent-bank to withhold the payment of the petitioner, as it was in the nature of deposit of the petitioner, and he was entitled to withdraw it at any time. The petitioner, therefore, claims that he is entitled to interest @ 12% on account of delayed payment i.e from 30.6.2007 to 17.6.2010. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is controverted by Mr. H.R. Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank, on the ground that PPO was received by the bank, but subsequently an order was received from the Directorate General NCC, directing the bank to withhold the PPO, as legal notice was received from the brothers of the petitioner, claiming that they were also entitled to pension. CWP No.7093 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The reading of the letter, on the basis of which payment was not released, shows that it was mentioned therein that fresh PPO would be sent in due course of time. Thereafter, fresh PPO was issued to the bank for payment to the petitioner. In spite of receipt of second PPO on 12.11.2008, the bank did not release the payment, without assigning any reason. The petitioner, therefore, was forced to approach this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction, with a prayer for issuance of the writ in nature of mandamus referred to above. It is during the pendency of the writ petition that the respondents released the amount to the petitioner i.e. pension due to him, till he attained the age of 25 years along with arrears of pension, which were due to his mother. There is no explanation forthcoming for non-payment of amount to the petitioner from 12.11.2008 to 17.6.2010. The petitioner is, therefore, held entitled to interest @ 9% on the payment due under PPO from 12.11.2008 to 17.6.2010. The bank is directed to release the interest, as ordered within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Writ petition disposed of. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 24, 2010 R.S.