R.S.A.No.292 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.292 of 2008 Date of Decision : 27.07.2009 Naresh Chander Mathur ...Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner and Secretary ...Respondents to the Government of Haryana and others CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is entitled to retiral pensionary benefits i.e. leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension etc. alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its due till the date of actual payment. The plaintiff also challenged the recovery of the amount granted to him on account of selection grade. The plaintiff claimed release of pensionary benefits alongwith interest thereon. The stand of the defendants was that the papers for the payment of retiral benefits were sent to Pension Sanction Authority seven months prior to his retirement, but on account of inter-departmental communication and the fact that the Government has decided to refix the R.S.A.No.292 of 2008 2 pay and pension of the Officers, who have already got sanction during the pending writ petition challenging recovery on account of refixation, some delay has taken places. The provisional pension was sanctioned after fixing the pay of the plaintiff in the scale of Rs.4100-5300. After refixing of salary, it was found that an amount of Rs.2,83,537/- has been paid in excess and, thus, an order for recovery was issued. The order for payment of death-cum-retiral gratuity and commutation of pension was issued after withholding the excess amount of Rs.2,83,537/-. It was also pointed out that leave salary of the plaintiff was already paid vide cheque No.94016 dated 4.8.2003. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2002. It was found that instructions were issued by the State Government on 5.11.2001 in respect of fixation of pay after considering the entitlement to receive selection grade. Since, the instructions were issued prior to the date of retirement of the plaintiff, the Court found that the defendants were negligent in making payment to the plaintiff. It was also fund that commuted payment order is dated 20.4.2005. Since, there is delay in making the payment, the defendants were directed to pay interest thereon. The learned first Appellate Court found that before the payment of commuted pension, the plaintiff was getting his full pension, therefore, there is no question of payment of interest on the amount of commuted pension. With the said findings, the payment of interest @ 12% was maintained to be paid by the defendants on late payment of retiral benefits other than commuted amount of pension. R.S.A.No.292 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that he is entitled to commuted amount of pension on the date of retirement itself and since the same was paid in the year 2005, the plaintiff is entitled to interest thereon. I do not find any merit in the said argument. No doubt, it is the stand of the plaintiff that he had applied for commutation of pension prior to his retirement, but the factum of such request is not proved on record. Prior to payment of commuted amount of pension, the plaintiff was getting full pension. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim interest on the commuted amount of pension, as for the said period, he was drawing full pension. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 27.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE