Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 243 Sohanjeet Sin eet Singh CWP-28310-2022 CW , 2025 Date of Decision: August 18, 2025 Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :
Legal Reasoning
urt in ered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randha dhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. SCT ) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein herein it was opined that disbursemen nefits rsement of pension and other benefits payable at re e at retirement must be done in a tim ver a a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two of two months, qua the said disburse etired isbursement would entitle the retired employee to ee to claim interest on the amount ustice ount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, t odhi, the following was held: “9. Si immed Pensio disbur time. circum month down the Sta denyin there i and, in interes the da interes circum rate wh . Since a Government employee mediately entitled to pension and nsion Rules, a duty is simultaneousl sbursement of pension and other b e. As to what is proper time w rcumstances of each case but norm onths from the date of retirement wn by the Apex Court in M. Padma e State commits any default in the p nying to the retiree the benefit of th ere is no gainsaying the fact that he in our opinion, the only way to terest for the period of delay on the e date of his retirement. Again, as terest, it should, in our view, rcumstances of a particular case wa te which may extend to even 18%.” mes oyee on his retirement becomes and other benefits in terms of the the ously cast on the State to ensure the the oper er benefits to the retirer in proper e will depend on the facts and and normally it would not exceed two two laid ent which time limit has been laid ). If admanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the performance of its duty thereby reby ney, of the immediate use of his money, ated t he gets a right to be compensated to compensate him is to pay him him on n the amount as was due to him on e of , as to what should be the rate of the the w, be generally 12% unless gher e warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 A reference is also made to y the the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Su upreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. Stat C 44 State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of K e of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Na n Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. 4. Per contra, learned counsel f not nsel for the respondent could not controvert the vert the law laid down in the aforemen er, he rementioned judgments. However, he draws the at the attention of the Court to the ch st the the charge sheet issued against the petitioner and ner and submits that he was held guilty guilty of misconduct. 5. I have heard the learned counsel ed the ounsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 6. It is no longer res integra that ade in that a recovery cannot be made in lieu of an ina an inadvertently granted benefit, give as not it, given that the said benefit was not acquired by d by engaging in misrepresentation. an be ation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on th on the judgment rendered by the Ho afiq the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Mashi (supra supra) as well as the decision of a D urt in of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of In f India vs. Ex-SI/GD Bachittar Si 6 of r Singh passed in LPA No.706 of 2023, decide cided on 24.04.2024. 7. Admittedly, the proceedings aris earing gs arising out of charge sheet bearing C/S No.252 i .252 issued on 29.09.2020 were concl exure e concluded on 20.04.2021 (Annexure R-5), and a nd a letter of censure was issued to ment. ued to the petitioner as punishment. However, the the same does not act as an em retiral an embargo on release of the retiral benefits, in , in its entirety, to the petition in etitioner. Moreover, the delay in disbursement ement of the complete retiral benefit ct and enefits caused by the illegal act and conduct of th t of the respondent entitles the petitio A.J. petitioner to interest in terms of A.J. Randhawa (supra). 8. Accordingly, the present petition etition is allowed and the impugned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 order dated dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) of 8) for recovery of amount of Rs.4,60,427/ 0,427/- is set aside. Further, the resp is e respondents/competent authority is directed to re d to refund the recovered amount with at the nt with an interest on the same at the rate of 6 % in 6 % interest per annum within a perio e date period of three months from the date of receiving o iving of the certified copy of this order s order. 9. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Arguments
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate fo for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate angra, vocate with Mr.Abhimanyu Jangra, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for e writ, er for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or dire r directions especially in the nature g the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2 ated 28.09.2022(Annexure P-8) passe ereby passed by respondent No.2, whereby amount of Rs t of Rs.4,60,427/- has been illegally re of the recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti s that petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner re ner retired from service as Addit er on Additional Assistant Engineer on 31.03.2019. 019. Thereafter, on 28.09.2022, an was , an amount of Rs.4,60,427/- was recovered fro red from the gratuity of the petition dated etitioner vide impugned order dated 28.09.2022 022 (Annexure P-8) for the rea e reason that an was increment was inadvertently rtently granted to the petitioner in th of his r in the year 2001 on account of his promotion. He further submits that the said by the said benefit was not acquired by the petitioner on ner on account of any misrepresentatio be entation, as such; the same cannot be PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 recovered fro red from the retiral benefit of gratuity a ly, no atuity awarded to him. Admittedly, no representation ntation was made on behalf of the o any of the petitioner with regard to any promotional tional benefit. Reliance in this regar ments regard is placed on the judgments rendered by ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Sta asih State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir hers dir vs. State of Bihar and others 2009(1) SCT SCT 611 to support his case. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ner is entitled to the interest on rec illegal on recovered amount as the illegal recovery has ry has delayed the receipt of retiral ben in this ral benefit of gratuity. Reliance in this regard is plac is placed on the judgment rendered b
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 18, 2 P.C , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document