SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this civil writ petition, preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated March 27, 2014 issued by respondent No.5 whereby family pension, gratuity as well as other retiral benefits to petitioner has been withheld illegally, arbitrary and without any reason. Further, prayer has been sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to 5 to grant family pension w.e.f. September 08, 2012 till date alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, gratuity as well as other retiral benefits permissible to deceased husband of petitioner. Mandamus has also been sought for direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to release the retiral benefits admissible to deceased husband of petitioner alongwith 18% interest.

(2.) At the very out set of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of retiral benefits. As is evident from Para Nos.7 & 8 of reply dated August 16, 2017, the Accountant General, Punjab has sanctioned the pension as well as pensionary benefits such as family pension, DCRG, General Provident Fund, GIS vide letter(s) dated May 31, 2017. Accordingly, writ petition has been rendered infructuous as far as grant of retiral benefits is concerned.

(3.) As regards grant of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that interest on delayed payment has not been awarded to which the petitioner is legally entitled. A writ in the nature of mandamus is legally maintainable for giving a direction to make the payment where it is justified in view of judgment delivered in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab & others, 1997 (3) SCT 468 as well as Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., 2000 (4) SCT 267. Gist of aforesaid judgment in the case of A.S. Randhawa (supra) is that a writ for direction to pay retiral benefits including interest is maintainable and that pensionary benefits, if released after a delay, entitles the incumbent to interest at the rate of 12%, which may even go upto 18% per annum. In case Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the appeal only on the question of grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, has observed that in case of delay of payment, interest has to be paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues, in case there is no reason or justification for not making payment. It observed: