BALRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming interest on account of delay in payment of pensionary benefits.

(2.) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent Board as Senior Assistant on 1.3.1977. Petitioner retired from service as Divisional Accountant on 31.3.2009. After retirement of the petitioner from service, respondent No. 4 served notice on the petitioner dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) with regard to payment of Rs. 20,000/- wrongly made by him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. Petitioner received another letter dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), wherein, it was alleged that he had further made payments of Rs. 910/-, Rs. 916/- and Rs. 937/- to the contractor and had also prepared the receipt to the tune of Rs. 875/-. The said letter was duly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was also inquired by the police. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- was got re-deposited. Therefore, it was reported by the police that no action was liable to be taken against the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer also wrote to the Managing Director vide letter dated 3.11.2011 (Annexure P-4) that no financial loss was caused to the department. However, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on the allegations of embezzlement. The inquiry officer submitted his report. Since the petitioner was not released his retiral benefits, he filed CWP No. 19937 of 2010. The said petition was disposed of as during the pendency of the petition, the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner. However, so far as the claim of interest on delayed payment was concerned, respondents were directed to dispose of the representation moved by the petitioner in this regard. The representation moved by the petitioner Annexure P-8 was rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-10. Petitioner again submitted a detailed representation Annexure P-11 but the same was declined vide Annexure P-12. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to receive interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits. Petitioner had retired from service in the year 2009, whereas, the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner after a gap of 2 1/2 years. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to receive interest on account of delay in payment of retiral benefits.