IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4053 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: December 01, 2011 State of Haryana and others .. Appellants Vs. Shamsher Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The trial court vide judgment dated 18.2.2010 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent, along with interest @ 18% per annum. The appeal filed by the appellants- defendants was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 15.6.2010. Hence this regular second appeal. Notice in this case was issued only qua rate of interest. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that even if the State had no explanation for not disbursing the retiral benefits within time, then the plaintiff could not get interest more than 12% per annum on the said retiral benefits. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered in case A.J. Randhawa, Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343 wherein it was observed as under :- “9. Since a government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the Sate to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retiree within proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex R.S.A. No. 4053 of 2010 -2- *** Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it, should, in our view, be generally 12% unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.” Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa's case (supra), after considering the cases, held that even in case where there is no satisfactory explanation for delay of disbursing the amount, the interest @ 12% per annum could be awarded. The Full Bench in A.J. Randhawa's case (supra), in para No.19 of the judgment further observed in this regard as under :- “19. In the cases before us there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in disbursing the retiral benefits to the pensioners and they are, therefore, entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the period of delay on the amounts as paid to them. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the interest as aforesaid within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Chief Secretaries of the two State Governments of Punjab and Haryana are further directed to fix the responsibility of the erring officers/officials in each case pertaining to their State in regard to the delay caused in the disbursement of retiral benefits to the petitioners and recover the amount of interest from them so that there is no loss caused to the State Exchequer for their default. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretaries of the States of Punjab and Haryana for information and necessary action.” R.S.A. No. 4053 of 2010 -3- *** As such, in the circumstances of the case, while considering the parameters as set out by the Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa's case (supra), the trial court appears to have not properly exercised the discretion while awarding interest @ 18% per annum whereas the proper and reasonable rate of interest to be awarded is 12% per annum. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed, impugned judgment and decree is modified and the State is directed to make payment of all the retiral benefits due to the plaintiff- respondent along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date it accrued against the State within three months from today, failing which the plaintiff- respondent would be entitled to recover interest at the rate as awarded by the trial court. December 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge