C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 7,2011 Mukhtiar Singh @ Mukhtar Singh ................... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.D.Bawa, Advocate with Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab. ... RITU BAHRI, J. The petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Irrigation Booking Clerk in Irrigation Department on 8.12.1971. On 31.5.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation he retired as Revenue Patwari. Petitioner was suspended on 19.11.2006 on the basis of a complaint and on 5.3.2007 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging change of Khasra-Girdawari C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 [ 2 ] without any order of Revenue Officer, and demanding `50,000/- for the said correction in Khasra-Girdawari. After retirement, payment of subsistence allowance was stopped to the petitioner. As per inquiry report dated 26.2.2008 the allegation of demand of `50,000/- was not proved. The allegation that there was a change in the Khasra-Girdawari has been proved. There was an irregularity in the procedure carried out for change in the Khasra-Girdawari. A Show Cause Notice dated 10.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) was issued proposing to take action on the basis of inquiry report. Petitioner was given a personal hearing on 24.10.2008. On 25.8.2009 petitioner made a representation stating that no order has been passed on the Show Cause Notice issued to him. In the reply filed by the Collector dated 2.3.2010, reference has been made to an order dated 8.2.2010 wherein taking a lenient view the period of suspension has been treated as leave of the kind due and a direction has been given to release the service benefits. Petitioner had submitted his pension papers on 7.2.2010. Pension case of the petitioner has been sent to the Accountant General, Punjab, on 26.2.2010. Vide letter dated 27.2.2010 his bills for arrears and leave encashment have been submitted to Treasury. Pension case of the petitioner has been finalised on 6.5.2010 (Annexure R3/2). Death-cum-Retirement C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 [ 3 ] Gratuity has been finalised and intimation has been given to the petitioner (Annexure R3/1). It is contended that there is no delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the pensionary benefits and they are not liable to pay interest on the delayed payment. Mr. R.D.Bawa, counsel for the petitioner, has referred to Rule 2.2 (c) (1) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which is reproduced as under:- “(c) (1) Where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under Clause (b) of rule 2.2 or where a departmental proceeding is continued under clause (i) of the proviso thereto against an officer who has retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement of otherwise, he shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on which, upon conclusion of such proceedings, final orders are passed, a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service upto the date of retirement or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately proceedings to the date on which he was placed under suspension; but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 [ 4 ] paid to him until the conclusion of such proceedings and of final orders thereon. The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn by competent authority on the conclusion of the proceedings will be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issue final orders by the competent authority.” The petitioner had retired on 31.5.2007. A charge sheet had been issued to him on 5.3.2007. Therefore, as per the above mentioned Rule the respondents were duty bound to release provisional pension to the petitioner. The inquiry report was submitted on 26.2.2008 and the final order was passed on 7.2.2010. The respondents have taken undue time to pass final orders on the inquiry report and, therefore, they are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that under Rule 2.2(c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules the petitioner was entitled to provisional pension before the date of his retirement on 31.5.2007. He had been issued the charge-sheet on 5.3.2007. The language of Rule 2.2(c) makes it mandatory for the employer to release provisional pension during the pendency of departmental proceedings. The respondents stopped the payment of subsistence allowance when the C.W.P. No. 17422 of 2009 [ 5 ] petitioner retired but did not release the provisional pension. As per the Rule, petitioner was not entitled to claim gratuity or death-cum-retiral gratuity till the conclusion of the proceedings. The department has not released provisional pension, therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to interest on delayed payment of pension (Annexure R3/2 dated 6.5.2010). Writ petition is partly allowed by giving a direction to the respondents to release 6% interest per annum on the pension PPO No. 235745/Punjab in favour of the petitioner for `5,738/- per month with effect from the date of his retirement on 31.5.2007. 7.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE