CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 29, 2008 Brij Mohan Kohli. .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. D. K. Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has retired from the office of Director General of Police, Haryana, on 31.5.1997. The pension case of the petitioner was taken up with the Government by respondent No.2 i.e. Director General of Police, Haryana, on the basis of an actual pay drawn by the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1996. On 2.6.1997, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 2 }: respondent No.2 re-submitted the pension case of the petitioner to respondent No.3, after attending to the observations made in Annexure P-2 on the basis of last actual pay drawn by him on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.5.1997. Still, the pension of the petitioner was not properly fixed and the pension papers were called back from respondent No.3 on 3.6.1997. The representation filed by the petitioner for re-fixing his pay was rejected and his pay reduced to Rs.3,300/- from Rs.3,500/- with effect from 1.4.1996. Some recoveries were ordered to be effected from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of this re-fixation. The petitioner challenged the same by filing Civil Writ Petition No.10806 of 1997. The Division Bench of this Court allowed this writ petition and quashed the orders dated 6.6.1997 and 9.7.1997. A direction was issued to the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of last pay actual drawn by him as a Superintendent. Further direction was also issued to expedite the release of retiral benefits to the petitioner. This happened on 20.10.1997. The petitioner states that despite the directions and the orders passed by this Court, the respondents deliberately delayed the finalisation of the case of the pension payable to the petitioner. He accordingly served a legal notice through his counsel but the respondents still remained unmoved. Despite the orders passed by this Court, the respondents did not fix the pension of the petitioner properly and again sought recovery of a sum of Rs.22,680/-, which was in violation of the orders passed by this Court. The petitioner had CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 3 }: then to file a Contempt Petition before this Court on 27.4.1998, seeking proper fixation of his pension on the basis of the original pay fixed with effect from 1.2.1995. It is in this background that the respondents then passed an order dated 2.9.1998, withdrawing the earlier order dated 30.3.1998, holding that the pay of the petitioner already fixed vide order dated 1.2.1995 was correct. The pay of the petitioner was accordingly fixed in revised pay scale of Rs.10,500/- with effect from 1.1.1996 by changing the date of annual increment of the petitioner from 1.1.1996 to 1.12.1996 as was originally shown in the order dated 1.2.1995. The case of the petitioner for release of pension and pensionary benefits was accordingly re-submitted on 8.9.1998. The petitioner made representation for release of pension and pensionary benefits with interest due on the delayed payment of the said amount. Ultimately various amounts due to the petitioner were released between 1.9.1997 and 18.6.1999. The petitioner claims that these amounts were required to be released to the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1997, he have retired on 31.5.1997. The petitioner, thus, filed the present writ petition, asking for interest @ 18% per annum due on the delayed release of his pensionary benefits. Though the reply filed by the State is not on record, yet a copy of the reply is available with learned counsel of the parties. The stand of the State in the reply is that pensionary benefits were released after the retirement of the petitioner and subsequently in compliance of the order of this Court passed on 20.10.1997, opinion of the Advocate General, Haryana and L.R., Haryana, was sought as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 4 }: to whether it is a fit case for filing appeal or not. After receiving the opinion, pay of the petitioner was re-fixed with effect from 30.3.1998 and accordingly difference in pensionary benefits was immediately given to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed in the reply that there was no culpable neglect or delay in releasing the payment due to the petitioner and hence, interest on any payment, even if delayed, is not warranted. I have considered the rival contentions raised before me by the counsel for the parties. The petitioner has given a chart relating to the amounts, which were due to him indicating what amount was released on which date. The same is reproduced below:- Retiral Due Actual Due Actual Period benefits date of date of amount amount of of delay payment payment of retiral retiral benefit paid benefits Leave 31.5.97 90720/- Encashment 24.6.97 71280/- 20.7.98 19440/- 14 months Commu- 1.6.97 263592/- tation of pension As per 1.9.97 67279/- 3 months old pay scale Arrears 1.7.98 5021/- 12 months of difference less paid. As per 1.12.98 191292/- 18 months revised pay scale. As per 27.8.97 107267/- 3 months old pay scale Arrears of 1.7.98 6501/- 13 months difference less paid CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 5 }: As per 19.11.98 39171/- 18 months revised 18.6.99 34171/- 24 months pay scale Learned State counsel is justified in submitting that no interest would be due on the payments, which were released after the retirement of the petitioner and the delay was only on account of re-fixation of pay, which led to ultimately release of some additional amount. The justification by the State on account of delay due to the pending litigation can not be appreciated. The pay of the petitioner was fixed but again refixed to deny the full pensionary benefits due to him. The petitioner had to seek correction of the error through the intervention of the Court. Thus, the amount due to him was withhold for no fault on the part of the petitioner, for which he needs to be compensated. However, the State can be given allowance of some period for finalising the case of pension of an employee who has retired. A period of 3 months for finalising the pensionary benefits due to an employee may be held justified on the part of Government. The delay beyond that period would not be justified. In terms of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case A.J.Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) Vs. State of Punjab, (P&H) (FB), 1998 (1) S.C.T. 343, the writ petition is held maintainable for claim of interest on delayed payment and other retiral benefits to which an employee is entitled under Civil Service Rules. Accordingly, the respondents would pay interest on the payment, which was delayed beyond the period of three months after the retirement of the petitioner. This CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15824 OF 1999 :{ 6 }: interest is payable on the difference of the payment released to the petitioner after finalising his case from the date it was due to the date of payment. This delayed payment would carry interest @ 9% per annum. The State would do well to release the payment of interest preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. February 29 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE