MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh was prematurely retired from service vide order dated 2,5.8.75. In the nature of things, the retiral benefits should have been released to him within three months of his retirement. He had protracted correspondence with the department so that retiral benefits could be released to him but to no effect. First instalment of Rs. 7102/ - was paid to him on 3.2.86 on account of gratuity. Second instalment of gratuity was paid to him on 1.8.86. He filed suit for declaration claiming the he was entitled to Rs. 36,234/ - i.e. Rs. 32,710/ - as interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity and Rs. 3524/ - as interest on delayed payment of salary for the period 16.5.70 to 30.6.70. Defendants contested the suit. It was urged that the department was not liable for delay, if any, that took place in the disbursement of gratuity to him. Department had been writing time and again to the plaintiff to sign and submit papers for the preparation of pension case but to no effect. Pension papers were ultimately signed and submitted by the plaintiff on 15.10.85. Amount of gratuity was paid to him without any unreasonable delay. As regards interest on the amount of leave salary for the period 18.5.70 to 28.8.70, it was pleaded that the case remained under investigation/pre -audit with various offices and the payment of leave salary was made to him after completing his service record.

(2.) VIDE order dated 21.3.1990, plaintiffs suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge First Class, Kharar in view of his finding that it was difficult to separate and ascertain the delay which was caused because of plaintiff s own default and the delay which was caused by the alleged lapse/default on the part of the department in the timely preparation of his service book/record. It was also found that mere suit for declaration was not maintainable. Plaintiff should have filed suit for specific amount. It was also found that the suit for recovery of interest on the amount of leave salary was beyond limitation. Suit for the claim of the interest on the gratuity amount was within limitation. It was found that the retiring employee had himself to prepare or obtain pro forma himself and submit the same to enable the department to process his pension case and finalise it.

(3.) IN the nature of things, the retiral benefits should have been disbursed to the plaintiff within 3 months of his retirement. It was the duty of the department to have commenced the preparation of pension case 6 months preceding the date of his retirement. Even otherwise, money which belonged to the plaintiff and which should have been used by him was used by the State of Punjab. Plaintiff should have been in receipt of retiral benefits in the year 1975. For all these years, money belonging to the plaintiff was utilized by the State of Punjab. If this money had been disbursed to him in the year 1975 or soon thereafter, he would have invested it in the purchase of some real estate or he would have invested it in some scheme carrying interest. Plaintiff was thus entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of gratuity for the period from 25.11.1975 to 31.1.1986. He is not entitled to interest on the leave salary because leave salary was disbursed to him in the year 1980. He should have claimed interest on the amount of the leave salary within 3 years of the date when leave salary was disbursed to him. He filed this suit on 17.3.87. He is thus not entitled to any interest on leave salary. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair it was held that where retirement dues are paid late, the retiring employee is entitled to interest for the period of delay. In equity also, the plaintiff is entitled to interest because he was deprived of the use of the amount for 11 long years by the department and the department itself used that amount belonging to the plaintiff. For the unlawful deprivation of the use of the amount belonging to him, the plaintiff requires to be compensated more particularly when there has been considerable erosion in the value of money during all these years. What one rupee could purchase in the year 1975, could not be purchased by rupees two or three in the year 1986. So, this appeal is partly allowed and the plaintiffs suit is partly decreed. He is allowed interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of gratuity for the period 25.11.1975 upto 31.1.1986. Amount will be paid to him on or before 31.1.2001. He will be paid Rs. 2,000/ - as counsel fee incurred by him in this court.