Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-29047 047-2022 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 242 Naval Kishor Kishore CWP-29047-2022 CW , 2025 Date of Decision: August 28, 2025 Dat Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner ..Respondent ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :
Legal Reasoning
ed by a Full Bench of this Court in A neer rt in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 047-2022 3 Retd.) vs. St s. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 3 d that CT 343 wherein it was opined that disbursement ement of pension and other benefits ust be nefits payable at retirement must be done in a tim n a timely manner. Any delay over a ua the ver a period of two months, qua the said disburse sbursement would entitle the retired em on the employee to claim interest on the amount due. t due. Speaking through Justice N.K. S N.K. Sodhi, 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 it should, in our view, terest, rcumstances of a particular case wa te which may extend to even 18%.” oyee on his retirement becomes mes the and other benefits in terms of the the ously cast on the State to ensure the er benefits to the retirer in proper oper and e will depend on the facts and two normally it would not exceed two ent which time limit has been laid laid admanabhan Nair's case (supra). If ). If reby the performance of its duty thereby of the immediate use of his money, ney, t he gets a right to be compensated ated him to compensate him is to pay him n the amount as was due to him on on , as to what should be the rate of e of the the w, be generally 12% unless gher e warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may als ments ay also be placed on the judgments rendered by ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ana urt in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M 5) 1 s. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. 4. Learned counsel for the respond on the espondent did not controvert upon the judgments re relied by the learned counsel for t ugned el for the petitioner and the impugned recovery ma ry made from the petitioner witho o the without issuing any notice to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel as the ounsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent an dent and gone through the case file. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 047-2022 4 6. It transpires that no misreprese n the epresentation or fraud is seen on the part of petiti petitioner and there is no allegation been ation against the petitioner has been made by the by the respondent-Corporation towar such, towards over payment and as such, recovery of e ry of excess amount that has already b is not eady been paid to the petitioner is not sustainable in able in view of the judgment relied i rsus elied in case State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih sih 2015(4) SCC Page 334. 7. In view of the facts and circum e, the ircumstances of the present case, the present writ t writ petition is allowed and the imp .2022 he impugned order dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure P ure P-6) is set aside in terms of the ju tate the judgment passed in the case State of Punjab jab Versus Rafiq Masih 2015 The 2015(4) SCC Page 334. The respondents/c dents/competent authority is further vered rther directed to pay the recovered amount along t along with interest @ 7.5% calculate ry till lculated from the date of recovery till the date of ac e of actual payment, in terms of the ju S. f the judgment passed in case of A.S Randhawa and S.K. Dua (supra) within a p 7.5% hin a period of three months @ 7.5% interest per an t per annum on receiving the certified c tified copy of this order. 8. Disposed of, accordingly, so a neous so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) tion(s), if any. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 28, 2 P.C , 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate fo for the petitioner. Mr. Ekompal Sagoo and Ms. respondents-PSPCL. te for Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has bee of as been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constituti stitution of India for issuance of a writ on the a writ in the nature of certiorari on the following pra ng prayers:- i) “Quash the order dated 0 ssed ed 07.10.2022(Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4, whereby an a been an amount of Rs.6,20,347/- has been recovered from the gratuity of t ffice of the petitioner without any office order, personal hearing and an r on an opportunity to the petitioner on account that the two increments ber, ents which were given in September, 2001 on the promotion from Li the m Lineman to Junior Engineer, the same increments were wrongly y is gly given and thus, the recovery is being effected from the petitione f the ioner that too after retirement of the petitioner as petitioner retired fro neer d from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) on 31.03.2022 and the reco 6) recovery effected on 07.10.2022(P-6) from the gratuity pay order. the er. Thus, the benefit given to the petitioner way back in 2001 can y of cannot be recovered now by way of recovery as the action of the re tally e respondent-Corporation is totally against the settled law of Hon e of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Stateof Punjab V/s Rafiq Mas SCC Masish” reported as 2015(4) SCC PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 047-2022 2 Page 334 and also in case of “S rsus f “Syed Abdul Qadir and ors Versus State of Bihar and others.” report reported in 2009(1) SCT 611. ii) Further directing the the respondent corporation to to return/release the amount of g the of gratuity of Rs.6,20,347/- to the petitioner, which has been wrong oner rongly recovered from the petitioner after retirement along with 18% ner. 8% rate of interest to the petitioner. The same has been recovered a lace red after retirement which took place on 31.03.2022 as Assistant Engin ngineer.” 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has er has been appointed as Lineman in . The an in the Board on 04.03.1987. The petitioner fur er further got proficiency step-up on on of up on 04.03.1995 on completion of requisite serv te service. The petitioner further got p w.e.f. r got promoted as JE Electrical w.e.f. 30.08.2001 an 001 and ultimately on 31.03.2022, he re r from 2, he retired as Assistant Engineer from the responde pondent-Board. Further, at the time y the e time of payment of gratuity the respondent-C Corporation recovered the amou the amount of Rs.6,20,347/- from the petitioner on er on the ground that the benefit of pro oming of promotional increment on becoming Junior Engin Engineer given in the year 200 r 2001 has been given wrongly rongly (Annexure P ure P-6). Further, the he has not m or the not made any representation for the amount alread t already released by the respondent-Cor Corporation to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitione ase of titioner further submits that the case of the petitioner itioner is squarely covered by the se preme the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c n the case of “State of Punjab Versus age rsus Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC Page 334’ and ‘Sy Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of SCT e of Bihar and others’ 2009(1) SCT 611. Learne Learned counsel for the petitioner furth ner is er further submits that the petitioner is entitled to th to the interest on recovered amou gment amount in terms of the judgment rendered by a