SATYA PAL SIN L SINGH v. PARSHANT YAD T YADAV COCP No. Date of De P No
Case Details
COCP No.1339 of 202 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 132 SATYA PAL SIN L SINGH Vs PARSHANT YAD T YADAV COCP No. Date of De P No.1339 of 2024 (O&M) of Decision: 16.01.2025 ......Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM: HON' ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH ESH MANUJA Mr. R.B. Gupta, Advocate Present: Mr. for the petitioner. for th Mr. P Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the respondent. for th **** MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MAN [1]. By way of present petition filed und By w ed under Section 12 of the Contempt o empt of Courts Act, 1971 , 1971 read with Section 215 of the f the Constitution of India, prayer ha yer has been made for i for initiation of proceedings agains against the respondent on account o ount of alleged willful no lful non-compliance of order dated 23 ted 23.05.2022 passed by this Court Court in CWP No.6331 of 331 of 2020, whereby the respondent B dent Bank was directed to conclude th lude the enquiry proceedin ceedings within a period of four mo ur months from the receipt of certifie certified copy of the orde e order and to pass appropriate ord te order on the release of pensionar sionary benefits to the pet the petitioner within four weeks therea thereafter, in case he was found entitle entitled for any monetary netary benefits, the same were to be rel weeks. be released further within four weeks [2]. Briefly stating, the petitioner who Brie r who was working as a Prabhandha handhak Salesman and re
Legal Reasoning
and retired as Branch Manager; FIR r; FIR No.210 dated 03.07.2023 wa 23 was registered against gainst him in relation to certain alleg in allegations of embezzlement thereb thereby resulting into initi to initiation of departmental proceedin ceedings as well. In the meanwhile, th hile, the petitioner retired etired in the year 2015. Faced with with the non-release of his termin terminal benefits, the petit e petitioner approached this Court by urt by way of filing Civil Writ Petitio Petition MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.1339 of 202 2024 (O&M) 2 No.6331 of 2020 f 2020, which was disposed of on of on 23.05.2022 with the followin llowing observation:- “Keeping in view the request o st of learned counsel for the petitione tioner,
Decision
he present petition is being disposed of the p ed of without issuing notice to he respondents. In case, the enquiry r the r iry report has already been received ved in espect of the enquiry proceedings, respe ings, which are pending against t st the petiti etitioner, the respondent-Bank is is directed to conclude the enqui nquiry proce roceedings within a period of four mo r months from the receipt of copy of th of this order rder. In case, the enquiry report is y is yet to be received then also enqui nquiry proce roceedings be also concluded within ithin a period of four months from t m the eceipt of copy of this order.” recei [3]. The respondent having failed to ad The to adhere to the aforesaid time lin e line, compelled the pet the petitioner to approach this Court ourt again by way of present contem ontempt petition. [4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner su Lea ner submits that though retiral benefi benefits have now been re een released in favour of the petition etitioner on 10.01.2025, however sinc er since the petitioner retir er retired in the year 2015 and the onl he only direction was issued in the Wr the Writ Petition way back y back on 23.02.2022 for conclusion lusion of the departmental proceeding eedings which are still g still going on, the petitioner was ent entitled for interest on the delaye delayed release of retiral etiral benefits. Learned counsel also also relies upon the decision passed b ssed by the Hon’ble Apex e Apex Court in the case of Bal Kisho ishore Mody vs. Arun Kumar Sing Singh and others, repor reported as (2001) 10 Supreme Cou Court Cases 174 in this regard. Th The relevant paragraph ragraphs nos.4 and 5 thereof are extrac extracted hereunder:- 4. At the time of the hearing of t of the matter, considering the delay ay in maki aking payment of retiral benefits, lear , learned Counsel appearing on behalf half of he respondent State submitted that this the r t this Court may pass appropriate orde orders givin iving direction to pay interest on on the said amount and the Sta State Gove overnment would pay the same with within one month from the date of t of the rder. He further submitted that approp order propriate action would be taken again gainst MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.1339 of 202 2024 (O&M) 3 he officer(s) concerned who delayed th the o ed the payment of retiral benefits. In th In this iew of the matter, we do not propose view pose to take any further action in the hese ontempt proceedings. conte 5. Hence it is directed that the re e respondents shall pay interest on t on the etiral benefits from January 15, 1996 retira 996 till the date of payment at the rate rate of 15 pe 5 per cent per annum. With regard to d to GPP payment, no further interest rest is equired to be paid as the amount is requi t is already released with interest. T t. The ppeal is disposed of accordingly an appe y and the High Court's judgment sha t shall tand modified to the aforesaid extent. stand ent. The respondent is directed to pay pay to he appellant costs quantified at Rs. 500 the a . 5000.” [5]. In response learned counsel for the r In re r the respondent submits that there wa ere was no delay on the n the part of the Department towar towards in conclusion of the enquir enquiry proceedings as th s as the same could not be concluded o luded on account of delay in conclusio nclusion of trial pertaining aining to the FIR in relation to the sam he same allegations and, thus, there wa ere was no intentional del al delay on the part of the respondent ndent towards release of retiral benefi benefits as such the presen present petition deserves dismissal. [6]. book. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties and perused the pap e paper Perusal of record shows that in Perus at in the present case, the enquir enquiry proceedings were s were initiated against the petitione titioner in the year 2013, whereas h reas he retired in the yea he year 2015 and even after the ex the expiry of more than 10 years, ars, the enquiry proceedin ceedings have not been concluded an ed and the petitioner has been release released the benefits only s only in the month of January 2025. 2025. Furthermore, while releasing th sing the retiral benefits in fits in favour of the petitioner, the r , the respondent has already retained tained a sum of Rs.24,707 4,707/- which was the subject matter o atter of enquiry proceedings. [8]. In such circumstances, in view of de In su of decision rendered in the case of B Bal Kishore Mody’s y’s case (supra) the respondent is d nt is directed to pay interest @ 6% p 6% per MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.1339 of 202 2024 (O&M) 4 annum in favour avour of the petitioner towards delay s delayed disbursement of his termin terminal benefits beyond f yond four months from the date of or e of order passed by the Writ Court ti ourt till 10.01.2025 within within one month from today. [9]. In view of above, the present petiti In vi t petitions stands disposed of, howev owever the petitioner wou r would be at liberty to approach thi ch this Court again in case there is an e is any inordinate delay i elay in disposal of the enquiry procee age. roceedings at any subsequent stage. [10]. Rule stands discharged. Rule January 16, 202 Atik , 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) (HA JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whe Whether reportable Whe Yes/No Yes/N Yes/No Yes/N MOHMED ATIK 2025.01.20 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment