IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15679 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Udeek Chand .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits due towards the petitioner viz. pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits alongwith interest. It has been pleaded that the petitioner superannuated on 30.4.2008. The respondents did not release the retiral benefits although no chargesheet had been served on the CWP No.15679 of 2008 [2] petitioner. Provisional pension had been sanctioned to the tune of 90% vide Order dated 6.6.2008 (Annexure P-5) in which also, there is no reference to any departmental proceeding or action pending against the petitioner. Thus, no reason has been given by the respondents in Annexure P-5 as to under what circumstances, only provisional pension is being released. The present petition was filed on 1.9.2008 i.e. after about four months of retirement. Notice of motion was issued on 4.9.2008. The stand of the respondents in the reply is that the chargesheet alongwith detail of allegations levelled against the petitioner, had been served on the petitioner during pendency of the petition. The petitioner had caused a huge loss to the respondents and therefore, delay in release of retiral benefits is justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as on date of retirement, no chargesheet had either been issued or served. It is only to justify the delay in release of retiral benefits and so as to avoid payment of interest on the benefits for the period of delay that the stand has been taken by the respondents. Chargesheet was issued after filing of the CWP No.15679 of 2008 [3] petition. Learned counsel for the respondents, although has filed an affidavit of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singla, District Controller, Food Civil Suppies & Consumer Affairs, Tarn Taran, to contend that chargesheet indeed had been sent to the address of the petitioner, however, it remains the admitted position that till the date of retirement of the petitioner, no chargesheet had been issued or served on the petitioner. For the first time, the departmental action, purportedly, was initiated after retirement of the petitioner. It is further the admitted position that charges have already been dropped. Considering the facts and circumstances cumulatively, I am of the opinion that the creation of chargesheet is only a ruse to justify the delay in release of retiral benefits. It is strange that after filing of the petition, the chargesheet has been framed on 26.9.2008. While in the preliminary submission, it is made out that the petitioner had caused a loss to the tune of Rs.39,40,493/- to the Government, the proceedings have already been dropped. The circumstances constrain me to CWP No.15679 of 2008 [4] record that action of the respondents is malafide and a ground has been created to cover up the delay in release of retiral benefits. Admittedly till filing of the petition, there was no chargesheet. Notice of motion was issued on 4.9.2008. The chargesheet has been framed on 26.9.2008. The charges have already been dropped as per the admitted position, although it has been made out in the written statement that petitioner had caused a loss to the Government to the extent of Rs.39 lac. The circumstances establish that officer/ officials of the respondents have abused the authority vested in them by law not only to defeat civil rights of a retired employee but has also resulted in his harassment. The chargesheet is a document that was invented only to justify inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing retiral benefits to the petitioner in time. This petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment. The petitioner would further be compensated by way of costs Rs.20,000/- in view of malafide action of the respondents as noticed above. The needful be done within two months of receipt of certified copy of the order. CWP No.15679 of 2008 [5] The respondents shall be at liberty to recover the costs from the officer/ official who is found responsible for the objectionable action, as noticed above. (AJAI LAMBA) October 27, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?