CWP No. 12446 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12446 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: July 07, 2010 Gurmel Singh .........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 pay interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payment of pensionary benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner retired as Sub Divisional Officer in Irrigation Department from the office of Executive Engineer Mechanical (Drainage & Construction Division), Ferozepur. The petitioner in accordance with rules, forwarded his pension case through the said Executive Engineer to respondent no. 4 namely Accountant General (A & E), Punjab on 17.12.2007 i.e. well in advance considering the date of superannuation to be 31.01.2008. The retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had CWP No. 12446 of 2009 2 to approach this Court by way of filing CWP No. 4659 of 2009 titled Gurmel Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 25.03.2009, directed the respondents to take a decision on the representation/legal notice of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date certified copy of the order is furnished to the authorities. It was further directed that if the petitioner is found entitled to any claim and if there is no legal impediment, the benefits be given to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. 3. Learned counsel contends that the pensionary benefits were released to the petitioner in June 2009. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that there has been no delay in release of pensionary benefits in so much as the petitioner had been working as AEE in the office of Executive Engineer Mechanical, (Drainage and Construction Division), Ferozepur from where, he was posted in the office of Kandi Water Shed Design Directorate, Chandigarh on promotion as SDO vide order dated 30.01.2008 w.e.f. that date. The petitioner joined as SDO on 30.01.2008 in fore noon. The petitioner retired as SDO on the very next day i.e. on 31.01.2008. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that pension case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Accountant General considering his posting on the post of AEE. On promotion of the petitioner on the last day of service, the pay of the petitioner was required to be refixed which was done by Chief Engineer (Canals), Irrigation Department, Punjab on 28.05.2008. In view of the change of status and salary of the petitioner, the retiral benefits could be released only in June 2009. The file CWP No. 12446 of 2009 3 of the petitioner had to be dealt with by various authorities and, therefore, some time has been consumed. There has been no lapse on the part of the respondents as service record of the petitioner was also not complete due to non-regularization of period from 24.01.2008 to 29.01.2008. The petitioner applied for earned leave for this period on 09.07.2008, which was sanctioned vide letter dated 04.11.2008. It is only thereafter that the said period of service was regularized. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 7. Surely the petitioner was required to get the period of service regularized at his instance which was done in November 2008. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that there has been delay of six months in release of pensionary benefits, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. Although the petitioner was promoted on the last day of service, yet it was required of the department to process the file within reasonable time. In case there was any infirmity in the service record which was required to be completed by the employee/petitioner, the petitioner should have been asked to do the needful at the earliest. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in the limited terms. 9. Respondents would pay to the petitioner interest @ 12% p.a. for six months within a period of four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. 07.07.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?