CWP No. 781 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 781 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2010 Romesh Chander .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 2. It has been brought out that the petitioner was appointed as a Section Officer in PWD B&R Department. The date of superannuation of the petitioner was 31.01.2008. At the time of superannuation, the petitioner was serving the respondents as Sub Divisional Engineer. The retiral benefits were not released, as intimated to the petitioner for the reason that recovery of Rs. 33,642/- was to be effected from the leave encashment of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, challenged the order of recovery by way filing CWP No. 21400 of 2008. CWP No. 781 of 2010 2 3. Learned counsel contends that a sum of Rs. 11 lacs approximately due towards the petitioner has been withheld by the respondents on the ground that a sum of Rs. 33362/- has to be recovered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that all the retiral benefits due towards the petitioner have been released. There has been no delay on the part of the respondents. A sum of Rs. 33,362/- was required to be recovered from the petitioner on account of which, the petitioner had approached this Court. Case was pending in this Court which has been disposed of on 02.03.2010. 5. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact that under orders passed in the year 2006 and 2007, a sum of Rs. 33,362/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner filed CWP No. 21400 of 2008 which was decided on 02.03.2010 wherein, it has been directed that the petitioner may file reply/objection, if any, to the impugned notices issued in the year 2006/2007. The respondents would take a decision in that regard. The petitioner would have the right and liberty to challenge the order if an order adverse to the rights of the petitioner is passed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the recovery was proposed to be effected from leave encashment due towards the petitioner. The leave encashment due towards the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 2,95,190/-. 8. In my considered opinion, it is wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to withhold a sum of Rs. 11 lacs approximately due towards the petitioner although admittedly, a sum of only Rs. 33,362/- was to be CWP No. 781 of 2010 3 recovered. No plausible or other reason has been assigned by the respondents for delaying the release of retiral benefits due towards the petitioner, even if margin for recovery of Rs. 33,362/- is to be kept. Facts make it evident that the respondents have dealt with the rightful claim of the petitioner to release of pensionary benefits most casually and carelessly. There has been no application of mind on the issue of release of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. There cannot be any justification not to release pensionary benefits to the tune of nearly Rs. 11 lacs for a dispute of Rs. 33,362/- only. It is clearly a case of irrational, irresponsible, unreasonable and injudicious action on the part of the respondents to withhold the benefits without any reason. 9. It is clear that the respondents have utilized the money due towards the petitioner from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.01.2008 till the date of payment. 10. The respondents, under the circumstances, are directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on delayed payment w.e.f. 01.03.2008 till the payments were made. The petitioner would not be entitled to interest on Rs. 33,362/-. 11. The interest amount be released within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 12. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. 10.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?