CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 03 -02-2011 Bal Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits accruing to him on account of the death-cum-retirement dues were released to him after lapse of 5 years and thus he is entitled to interest upon the delayed payments. The stand of the respondents is that there were departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner when he attained the age of superannuation. In the inquiry held against the petitioner, some of the charges stood proved while he was exonerated in the others. While dealing with the matter on the administrative side and upon the consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner an order was passed on 21.8.2004 in which it was specifically observed as follows:- “However, in view of the fact that no pecuniary loss has been caused by him to the High Court and the delinquent official had already retired in the year 1999, we feel CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) 2 that no effective punishment can be imposed upon him under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, Part 1. Since the retiral benefits were withheld on account of grave charges, some of which have been proved as well, the action of the High Court in withholding the same appears to be justified, therefore, it will be open for the competent authority not to pay any interest on arrears thereupon. We recommend accordingly. Sd/- (Amar Dutt) Judge August 21, 2004 Sd/- (Surya Kant) Judge” Prior to the passing of this order, the petitioner had initiated Civil Writ Petition No.16301 of 2003 with the same prayer which has been admitted. While disposing of the said writ petition, the petitioner was confronted with the order dated 21.8.2004 and in view of that the petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 21.8.2004 which liberty was granted to him if permissible under the law. The instant writ petition is a result of the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner has been highlighted by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf who contends that on the delayed payment of the benefits of death-cum-retirement duets he was entitled to the interest which prayer has been resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent who has referred to Rule 9 sub rule 4 and 69 clause (c ) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, wherein it has been provided as follows:- CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) 3 “(c ) No gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon.” It is thus contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that they were very well within their rights to withhold the amount of gratuity in view of the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner at the time of his superannuation and eventually upon conclusion of the same on 21.8.2004, the benefits were released to the petitioner on 2.4.2005. It is thus his case that considering the fact that the matter attained finality in August, 2004 there was no untoward delay caused in the release of the benefits and thus the plea of the petitioner that he was entitled to the interest on the amount of the dues is mis-placed. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that even if this rule is to be resorted to then also petitioner was entitled to interest when the inquiry stood concluded i.e. 27.2.2004 and thus he as entitled to interest atleast from this date. Upon due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to interest from the date when he superannuated or from the date when the inquiry stood concluded is not tenable. Clause (c ) of Rule 69 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 as extracted above is amply clear and takes into consideration the point of conclusion of the departmental proceedings as well as the issuance of final order thereon. The final order in this case was passed on 21.8.2004 when the proceedings were accepted by the competent authority by rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner against the inquiry report. The amount was also concededly released to the petitioner CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) 4 on 2.4.2005. This Court in case titled as observed as follows:- “Under Rule 2.2 (b) read with Rule 2.2 (c ) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, an employee who is facing a departmental enquiry of judicial proceedings at the time of retirement, is not entitled to paid be full pension. Even in a case where the employee has retired, the Government is vested with a power to start proceedings under Rule 2.2 (b). In the either of these cases, the Government servant has a limited right to receive provisional pension. In terms of Rule 2.2 (c), gratuity is not payable to an employee who is facing departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings. Therefore in view of the fact that Shri Boota Ram was being prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge, Gurdaspur for an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondents were justified in not paying him full pension and also in withholding his gratuity. However, after his acquittal, there remained no justification for not paying the remaining pension and gratuity to late Shri Boota Ram. The mere fact that the respondents were considering the possibility of initiation of departmental proceedings against Shri Boota Ram cannot be treated as a legal justification for withholding the amount of pension and gratuity. The vigilance enquiry, if any, pending with the Government can, at the best, be treated as preliminary enquiry and not departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and, therefore, the pendency CWP No.1959 of 2010(O&M) 5 of the vigilance case with the departmental authorities could not be made a ground for denying the retiral benefits which became payable to Shri Boota Ram immediately after his acquittal on 11.9.1982.” Having regard to the aforesaid, barring period of two months which the respondents were entitled to release the amount to the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the amount was obviously released to the petitioner after a delay of six months. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to interest for this period beginning from 21.10.2004 till release of payment on 2.4.2005 at the rate of 9% per annum. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. February 3 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge