IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1771 of 2009 Date of Decision: June 29, 2010 Gurdev Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing Communication dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P-10) vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even as per the admitted case of the respondents as given out in short affidavit of Mr. Chaman Lal Wason, Director, Special Component CWP No.1771 of 2009 [2] Plan, Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 15.1.2010, the pension papers were completed on 20.6.2007. Under the circumstances, the respondents were bound to release the pensionary benefits within a reasonable period of the said date. The benefits however were not released. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that onus is on the petitioner- employee to complete the pension papers before the date of retirement. The process is required to be initiated by the employee six months before the date of retirement. The conduct of the petitioner has been found wanting and therefore, the respondents cannot be burdened with payment of interest as there is no delay in release of pensionary benefits. I have considered the issue. The admitted facts are that the petitioner retired on 31.3.2007 as Technical Assistant from the office of respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Special Component Plan, Department of Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh. As per the case set up by the petitioner, pension papers were completed in all respects on 10.10.2006 i.e. before the date of retirement. Certain objections however had been raised which were also satisfied CWP No.1771 of 2009 [3] and documents submitted on 10.12.2006. The petitioner however received a communication on 24.5.2007 asking him to come personally to the office of the respondent to do the needful for completion of pension papers. No deficiency however was pointed out in the said communication appended as Annexure P-3. Since the petitioner had been advised complete rest by a doctor, the petitioner submitted a representation on 29.5.2007 saying that pension papers be sent to the petitioner while pointing out clearly the deficiencies so as to enable him to re-submit the papers after completion. The petitioner thereafter did not hear anything in regard to the release of pensionary benefits. Be that as it may, the dues were paid to the petitioner in the following manner:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Date of payment 1 Gratuity 2,33,470.00 09.02.2008 2 Leave Encashment 14,786.00 28.03.2008 3 Pension (Arrears) 1,62,000.00 31.12.2008 Since no specific response was coming forth from the respondents, vide order dated on 21.10.2009 the respondents were directed to file a detailed affidavit as to how the onus of delay in completion of pension papers is being placed on the petitioner. Affidavit has been CWP No.1771 of 2009 [4] filed as noticed above on 15.1.2010. As per the affidavit and in particular, Para 4, the petitioner completed the pension papers on 20.6.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner be considered for grant of interest on delayed payment from the said date so as to avoid other complexities raised by the respondents. Having considered the issue in the context of the limited prayer of the petitioner, I find that it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner completed pension papers on 20.6.2007. In such circumstances, the respondents were bound to release the pension within a reasonable period thereof. The ground taken by the respondents in the affidavit is that the Accountant General, Punjab vide Communication dated 30.7.2007 raised certain objections asking for entry of regularisation of services of the petitioner in the service book. The parent department of the petitioner did not respond and hence the delay. I am of the considered opinion that entry in service book had to be done by the department. The onus of completing the service book in the said regard was not on the petitioner CWP No.1771 of 2009 [5] and therefore, no benefit of this delayed entry can be taken by the respondents. Considering the fact that admittedly, the pension papers were completed on 20.6.2007, however, pensionary benefits were released between February 2008 to December 2008, I find that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment. It is the settled law that undue delay in release of retiral benefits entitles the employee to interest. Timely release of pensionary benefits to a retiree constitutes valuable right and property. In such circumstances, delay in release of retiral benefits is arbitrary. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents would pay interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment from July 20, 2007 till the date of payment. The interest be paid within a period of two months from today. The petition is allowed in the above terms. (AJAI LAMBA) June 29, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?