Distribution Mandal v. Naranjan Singh and others Naranjan Singh and others
Case Details
2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) Sr. No.106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CM-3463-C-2025 in/and CM RSA RSA-961-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.04.2025 Date of Decision : The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal …Appellant The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal Versus Naranjan Singh and others Naranjan Singh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. for the appellant. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) LAPITA BANERJI 2025 CM-3463-C-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 121 days in This is an application for condonation of delay of This is an application for condonation of delay of filing the appeal. filing the appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. applicant-appellant. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal is condoned. filing the appeal is Application is allowed. Application is Main case Under challenge in the present regular second appeal is the Under challenge in the present regular second appe Under challenge in the present regular second appe judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. By judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had set aside the the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.
Legal Reasoning
Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest @ 12% per annum on the retiral benefits r annum on the retiral benefits for a period o for a period of 38 months prior to the filing of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 6 2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) 2. The facts of the case are narrated The facts of the case are hereinafter:- i) retired as an Additional Assistant The plaintiff-respondent retired as an Additional Assistant The plaintiff Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on March 31, 2006. March 31, 2006. ii) Vide impugned order dated S eptember 18, 2006 passed by Vide impugned order dated September 18, 2006 passed by employer/appellant, the plaintiff was allowed defendant No.2-employer/appellant, the plaintiff was allowed defendant No.2 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the iii) Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity or leave plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity encashment benefits. encashment benefits. Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the iv) Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the employer-appellant that a sum of Rs.6 employer that a sum of Rs.6,30,567.40 was outstanding against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was required against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was required to give his consent to the said recovery, for consent to the for release of his pensionary benefits. benefits. v) The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation of the said The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation outstanding amount but the employer outstanding amount but the employer neither provided the same nor disbursed the pensionary benefits. nor disbursed the pensionary benefits nor disbursed the pensionary benefits vi) contested the suit and filed a written The appellant-employer contested the suit and filed a written The appellant that since the departmental proceedings statement. It was agitated that since the departmental proceedings statement. were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% of the were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% 90% of provisional pension. It was provisional pension instead of 90% of provisional pension. It was provisional pension instead of also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/- was not paid by the also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/ also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/ plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to the department. the department. VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 6 2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) vii) Furthermore, Furthermore, it was sought to be urged i it was sought to be urged in defence that plaintiff failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567.64 from his failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567. failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567. here was no delay or lapse on the part of pensionary benefits and there was no delay or lapse on the part of pensionary benefits and the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. viii) During the penden During the pendency of the appeal, th cy of the appeal, the appellant-employer had disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits was paid. interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits ix) The plaintiff The plaintiff had prayed for 12% interest per annum, for lat prayed for 12% interest per annum, for late incorporating supplementary disbursal of retiral benefits by incorporating supplementary disbursal of retiral benefits by prayers. prayers. 3. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. 4. After hearing After hearing After hearing the the the learned counsel for learned counsel for learned counsel for the parties and the parties and the parties and cord, the learned District Judge came to the appreciating the material on record, the learned District Judge came to the appreciating the material on re finding that despite the plaintiff claiming full retiral benefits, the defendant finding that despite the full retiral benefits, the defendants failed to disburse the same for more than 7 years failed to disburse the same for mor e than 7 years. 5. The learned District Judge held that at the time plaintiff The learned District Judge held that at the time The learned District Judge held that at the time uperannuated with effect from March 31, 2006, superannuated effect from March 31, 2006, provisional pension only vide order dated September 18, 2006, to the extent of 66% was paid to him vide order dated September 18, 2006, to the extent of 66% was paid to him instead of provisional pension of 90%, without any valid reason. instead of provisional pension of 90%, without any valid reason. Vide order communicated to the plaintiff that dated January 19, 2010, the department communicated to the plaintiff that dated January 19, 2010 than 6 lakhs was payable by him, but no details for the said than 6 lakhs was payable by him sum of more than 6 lakhs was payable by him t was provided to the plaintiff, despite several requests outstanding amount was provided to the plaintiff, despite several requests outstanding amoun by him. 6. The first Appellate Court did not agree with the trial Court’s The first Appellate Court did not agree with the The first Appellate Court did not agree with the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and was not entitled to finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and was not entitled to finding that the VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 6 2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) any relief. Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court it however directed the appellant-employer to conclude the trial Court it however directed the appellant trial Court it however directed the appellant plaintiff within 6 months from the date of proceedings against the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of proceedings against the judgment/decree. judgment/decree. 7. The learned DJ held that the appellant The learned held that the appellant-defendants had taken a hyper technical objection with regard to the issue of filing hyper technical objection with regard to hyper technical objection with regard to of supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of “Kedar Nath Agrawal supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of (Dead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs ead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs” 2004 (8) SCC 76 was relied upon to come to the finding that subsequent events could be taken into upon to come to the finding that subsequent events upon to come to the finding that subsequent events leads to shortening of litigation or due consideration in the event, the same leads to shortening of litigation or due consideration i to subsequent change of circumstances the original relief becomes to subsequent change of circumstances t to subsequent change of circumstances t complete justice between the parties. inappropriate or in order to do complete justice between the parties. inappropriate or in order to 8. Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held ecessary to take into account the that it was necessary to take into account the subsequent events and direct grant of interest for unauthorizedly restricting the grant of grant of interest for restricting the grant of provisional on to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly there were no on to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly pension to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff till the date of departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff passing of the judgment in ng of the judgment in appeal. 9. Therefore, there was no reason Therefore, t reason for the employer to grant provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. No provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. ground was made out at all by the employer to show why the full pen ground was made out at all b y the employer to show why the full pension was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. 10. The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground for withholding the pension of the plaintiff was for withholding the pension of the p was on account of pendency of VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 6 2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) departmental proceedings which could not be departmental proceedings be proved by the employer- appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fact annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fa annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fa that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the interest that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the component was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. suit till the date of actual disbursement. 11.
Legal Reasoning
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and This Court has heard the learned counsel for the This Court has heard the learned counsel for the perused the material on record. perused the material on record. 12. It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment reasoned judgment passed by the learned District Judge. passed by the learned District Judge. Nothing has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of more than has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of mo has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of mo Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to defendants that disciplinary support the contention of the appellant-defendants that disciplinary support the contention of the appellant tiff. proceedings were pending against the plaintiff. proceedings were pending against the plain 13. The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty but a constitutional right settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty and is entitlement of the employee on superannuation as long as the is entitlement of the employee on superannuation as long as the . Admittedly, the plaintiff served on employee serves on a pensionable post. Admittedly, the plaintiff served on employee serves on a pensionable p to be disbursed expeditiously a pensionable post. Therefore, the same had to be disbursed expeditiously a pensionable post. and could not be withheld without any justifiable reason. A beneficial could not be withheld without any justifiable reason. A beneficial reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court “Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Official and Officers Association Vs. radesh Roadways Retired Official and Officers Association Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ttar Pradesh and another”, (2024) ) 9 SCC 331. Relevant extract is set out hereinafter:- is set out hereinafter: 46. the above referred thread the thread “46. judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a The common The common in in VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 6 2025 (O&M) RSA-961-2025 (O&M) bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or f an employee is covered under the Provident Fund a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund a scheme. I Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not employer to provide pension to an employee who is not employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.” covered under the rules.” 14. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the District Judge merits no interference. District Judge merits no interference. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961-2025 is In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961 In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961 dismissed. 16. of. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (LAPITA BANERJI) (LAPITA BAN JUDGE JUDGE April 21, 202 Vandana 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned : ther speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 6