MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure P-9), whereby, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and interest on the delayed payment has been declined. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme Funds and other benefits.

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk with the respondent department and was regularised w.e.f 21.01.1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 20.09.1988 and as Superintendent on 27.03.2012. Ultimately, he retired on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the petitioner was not paid his retiral benefits in spite of making a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.20638 of 2012 for release of his gratuity, leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme Funds and benefits of commutation of pension along with interest. Said petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2012 by passing a speaking order. It was also mentioned in the order that in case, the petitioner is found to be entitled to various admissible pensionary benefits, the same shall be released to him without any delay. However, in spite of directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition, no benefit was given to the petitioner and hence, he filed COCP No.3669 of 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was paid gratuity, leave encashment and amount of General Insurance Scheme but no interest was paid to him on delayed payment. He, therefore, served a legal notice upon the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment but still the same was not paid. Thereafter, he filed CWP No.12492 of 2013 seeking issuance of directions to the respondents for correct calculation of his retiral benefits as well as for payment of interest. Again a direction was issued on 30.05.2013 and respondent No.3 was directed to consider and decide the legal notice dated 05.04.2013 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In spite of directions issued by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed about the writ petitions as well as contempt petition filed by the petitioner and also the fact that the payment was not made to him within a reasonable time after the date of his retirement i.e 30.04.2012. It has also not been disputed that the delay did not occur because of any fault on part of the petitioner. The petitioner was released the following amount on 21.03.2013 :-