IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 80 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 2, 2010 Dr. M.L. Bansal …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 25.11.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 17945 of 2009, relegating the appellant to the remedy of filing a civil suit with regard to delay in releasing the pensionary benefits. It is appropriate to mention that the appellant has approached this Court claiming interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. He has sought pre-mature retirement and LPA No. 80 of 2010 eventually served a three months legal notice dated 10.7.2006. Accordingly, he was given voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2007, subject to the inquiry which was pending under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The charges levelled against the appellant were dropped as there was no complaint, witness and evidence against him. The appellant has claimed that there is delay in making payment of various retiral benefits, which is sought to be explained with the help of the following table:- Sr. No. Date of retirement Pensionary Date on which pensionary benefit was given No. of years and days pensionary benefit was given Amount paid for the pensionary benefit (Rs.) Amount of interest payable on delay payment (Rs.) 1. 10/12/2007 Commuted pension 10.12.2008 1 year 7,11,315 85,358 2. -do- Gratuity 10.12.2008 1 year 3,50,000 42,000 3. -do- Earned Leave 10.09.2008 9 months 3,62,200 32,598 4. -do- GIS 10.05.2008 6 months 62,000 3,720 5. -do- Pension 10.12.2008 1 year in installments of 12 1,95,065 Total 11,703 1,75,379 The appellant made representation dated 18.12.2008 for payment of interest on account of delayed disbursement of pensionary benefits. However, the claim made by him was rejected on the ground that the delay in making payment of pensionary benefits was caused due to pending disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 7 of the Rules. Some proceedings were also taken before the Lokayukta, Haryana. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the 2 LPA No. 80 of 2010 view that the matter is governed by the Office Memorandum dated 20.2.2002, issued by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, on the subject of payment of interest on the delayed retiral benefits. The State of Haryana, inter alia, laid down as under:- “ In the case of an employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of retirement and the employee is clearly exonerated and steered clear of all the charges during the process of disciplinary proceedings and proved innocent, the retiral benefits due to them should be paid along with interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment.” A perusal of the aforesaid para would clearly show that once an employee is steered clear of all the charges then all the retiral benefits due to such an employee should be paid along with interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid instructions. A perusal of the above table shows that gratuity, earned leave, GIS and pension have been paid after a period of six months to one year. Therefore, the delayed payment would bear interest. In support of above proposition reliance may be placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1997(3) RSJ 318. However, no interest can be claimed for commuted amount of pension for obvious reasons. The commutation has been granted on 10.12.2008 for a specified amount. In respect of the delayed period pension has also been given, as is evident from column 5 of the table. 3 LPA No. 80 of 2010 Therefore, no interest with regard to commutation of pension would be payable. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal succeeds. The order of the learned Single Judge opining that disputed questions of law would arise is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of interest for delayed period at the rate of 8% per annum. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) August 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4