S.K. PUNCHHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in the present writ petition is for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. The petitioner was retired on 30.11.1996 and at that time three inquiries were pending against him. The provisional pension was allowed to the petitioner in the year 1997; however, the full retiral dues were allowed to him in the year 1999. Ultimately after inquiries, the three charge-sheets were filed by order (Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5). It is the case of the petitioner that once the charge-sheets were filed the respondents were enjoined to grant interest to the petitioner for the delayed payment of retiral dues for the period from 01.12.1996 to 30.11.1999.

(2.) Learned Assistant Advocate General states that once the charge-sheets were decided the petitioner was released all his dues within a reasonable time and therefore there was no negligence on the part of the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plea of the respondents that there is no negligence on their part is not and cannot be a complete answer. As per him the basic justification for interest is always the fact that money belonging to one person is being put to use by another person. If that is compounded by negligence there may be a claim for even higher interest. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab,1999 2 SCT 817 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-