IQBAL MASIH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the interest on delayed release of pensionary benefits has been denied to him on the ground that administrative department of the petitioner while discharging its duty had sanctioned the amount within given time frame but delay in actual release of the payment was due to the non-release of the same by the treasury and, therefore, administrative department cannot be made liable for non-release of the amount within reasonable time so as to make administrative department liable for grant of interest. The facts of the present writ petition are as under:-

(2.) The petitioner joined as temporary Sewadar in District Jail, Gurdaspur on 23.04.1981. He continued to perform his duties as such till 01.09.2004, when his service was regularized. After discharging his duties for the period of 33 years, the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2014. It has been clearly stated that at the time of retirement, there was no impediment in the release of pensionary benefit as there was no complaint or inquiry pending, so as to entitle the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner argues that after the retirement, a sum of Rs.2,65,810/- as leave encashment; a sum of Rs.4,17,734 as GPF and a sum of Rs.4,38,587 as gratuity were released to the petitioner on 16.08.2014, 12.03.2015 and 30.03.2015 respectively. As the payments were released after a delay ranging from four months to eleven months, the petitioner raised a claim through a legal notice dated 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/8) for the grant of interest. As no action was being taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP-955 of 2015 titled as Iqbal Masih vs. State of Punjab and others claiming the interest on delayed release of payment. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.01.2015 by directing the respondents to decide the legal notice of the petitioner and in pursuance to said directions, respondent No.3 passed an order declining the claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest. This said order dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P/9) declining the interest is under challenge in the present writ petition. Though, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of ACP benefit was also declined but the counsel for the petitioner has given up the said claim at the time of hearing and restricted his claim only to grant of interest on delayed release of the retiral benefits.

(3.) Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed reply and in the reply, the dates on which the payments were made stands admitted. The respondents have rather defended order for non-grant of the interest to the petitioner on the ground that it is the District Treasury office, who has to release the actual payment to the petitioner and, therefore, the administrative department cannot be held liable to make payment of interest. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance.