CIVIL MISC. NO.89 of 2011 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13032 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL MISC. NO.89 of 2011 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13032 of 2001 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2011 K.B. Sharma .....Petitioner VERSUS Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University,Hisar & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate, for the State. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has initially joined service of Government Co-educational School, S.S. Bara Hindu Rai Road, New Delhi on 23.10.1970. Subsequently, the petitioner joined the services with Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. In the year 1982, Haryana Government issued instructions that the service rendered in Central Government or CIVIL MISC. NO.89 of 2011 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13032 of 2001 -2- Autonomous bodies thereof as well as the State Government or Autonomous bodies thereof would be inter changed vice-versa and the previous Government would discharge the pension liability by paying lump sum one time payment as the pro-rata pension/service gratuity/death-cum-retirement gratuity etc. The respondent-Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University adopted the said instructions issued by the Government on 27.1.1982. The previous employer of the petitioner, respondent No.3 then forwarded a cheque of Rs.14,380/-, dated 9.6.1994, which was pro-rata pensionary benefits. Respondent No.1-University, however, directed that an interest of Rs.20,240/- has accrued at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of terminal liability of Rs.14380/-. The University, accordingly, directed that the interest may be recovered from pension of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month till the recovery is fully realised. Respondent Nos.1 & 2, thereafter, took up the issue with respondent Nos.3 & 4 for payment of interest for delayed release of pro-rate pensionary liability. Respondent Nos.3 & 4, however, took up a stand that no interest was payable. Respondent Nos.1 & 2, thereafter, obtained an undertaking from the petitioner that he would be liable to pay the interest in case interest on terminal benefits is to be charged for counting the past service and in case he failed to deposit, the same could be adjusted against pension payments to him. CIVIL MISC. NO.89 of 2011 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13032 of 2001 -3- Ultimately, respondent Nos.1 & 2 had calculated a sum of Rs.1,30,777/- as an interest on delayed payment of pro-rata pensionary benefits liability and ordered the recovery of the same at the rate of Rs.1962/- from the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. September, 2000. The petitioner, accordingly, has challenged this order through the present writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, the recovery was ordered to be stayed. The writ petition was admitted on 11.12.2003. The petitioner has now moved an application (Civil Misc. No.89 of 2001) for early hearing of the petition on the ground hat the petitioner is more than 80 years old and thus, would ultimately suffer the consequences if the writ petition is not decided. Considering the age and the issue involved in the petition, the notice of the application was issued and it was adjourned with the clear indication that the main writ petition would be heard and disposed of on the next date in motion hearing. The writ petition could not be heard on 10.1.2011 as no one appeared for the respondent University and in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned for today. Today also no one has chosen to appear on behalf of respondent No.1-University. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4. The liability to pay the pro-rate pension or the amount in lieu thereof was that of respondent No.3 & 4. The said amount was CIVIL MISC. NO.89 of 2011 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13032 of 2001 -4- paid long ago. Still the University at that time had raised the demand of Rs.20,240/- as interest. Even recovery of the same was also ordered. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by respondent Nos. 1& 2 with respondent Nos.3 & 4. The matter thereafter had remained pending for quite some time. Now a sum of Rs.1,30,777/- is directed to be recovered with interest, which has accrued from the year 2003-2006. There is or was no liability on the part of the petitioner to either pay this sum or interest thereon. Where would be the justification on the part of the University to charge interest when the payable amount was deposited in 1994. The respondent-University is totally unjustified in demanding interest on the payment, if any, which was released by respondent Nos.3 & 4 long ago. The petitioner was under no liability to pay an amount and is being asked to pay interest of Rs.1,30,777/- on amount of Rs.14380/-, which has been paid by respondent Nos.3 & 4. This action of the University is, therefore, found unjustified. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The demand of Rs.1,30,777/- demanded as interest is quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to receive his full pension. The amount, which has been recovered from the petitioner, shall be refunded to him within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. January 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE