Geeta Rani v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"# #$%&% '( )* )*
(+, *-*-*-.
! "
# $ *-*-. /* 0!1 % &
'
'
$$ ($ $(%)
* ' $) () $(%% $ +
# $
%,(( '
-(((./ 0($" $(%(
*
' 1
!
1
' $2
(% (- $(%% '
* %(3((/34)((5 3)((./ + ($ %$ $(%( (,6 $(%% ' ' ' % $(%%
'
$2
' * $) ($ $((7 $2
$) () $(%%
*
8
' *' (% (4 $(%$
(3 (, $(%$' ' 3( (, $(%$
9 /$ &
*
' $) () $(%% (% (4 $(%$
' $) () $(%% : 8 '
!
' !;
#
%7%4, $(%4'
<%)= &'
' '!
$> (- $(%- '
' '
/
!
"#$% &
!
"#$%
''
(
! ) * *
+
,
*
+
''
-
.
/
+
0 +
-
+
1'
+
!
"#$%
+
+
''
. /
4
*
+
+ 5
)
+
+
''
"
+
,
+
''
6
& # $
+
$(%, $(%-
!
' ' !
$, %( $(%- 8 ?
9
/3 /4@
(7 %% $(%-?
9 /,@
# $' *
' $) () $(%% $$ ($ $(%) ?
9 />@
$ %( --)./'
A '
'
' $) () $(%% $) ($ $(%) B
' A ' *' $) () $(%% '
'
!
$> (- $(%-?
9 /3@!
& # $
, 0
# $
!;
%7%4, $(%4
!
'
' '
/ "7//89
3)
:
. /
+ *
(
+
' '
/
2
+
/
!
"#$%
1 :
!
"#1%
/
' '
*
+
+
';
+
2
$
<=
.
.>"
9
:1
997?@&7 "#A%
+
B"
9
3
997?@&7 "#
% /
+
<=
.
+
!
+
+
<=
.
+
+
6 > A ' ' '
!
' $) () $(%%'
1
*
*' $) () $(%% A '
' ' !
' ?
9 /3@!
&
' !
A '
'
!
- C
8.
In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The services of the computer teachers who had completed 21⁄2 years as on 01.07.2011 were regularized. Subsequently, another letter dated 05.07.2011 was also issued, prescribing that w.e.f. 01.07.2011, the services of such computer teachers who had completed 2 1⁄2 years of service were also to be regularized every four months. 9.
Admittedly, the petitioner had joined the services on 28.02.2009, her services were liable to be regularized on 28.08.2011 upon completion of 21⁄2 years of service. The said right of the petitioner was duly recognized by this Court, while disposing off
CWP No.19145 of 2014, when this Court granted the benefit of regularistion to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.08.2011 instead of 01.04.2012. Thereafter, while granting the benefit of regularization of the services to the petitioner w.e.f. 28.08.2011, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.2,10,778/- as arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.08.2011 to 28.02.2018. However, the amount of arrears were paid after several years and no interest was paid on the delayed payment.
10.
The present petition has been filed before this Court with the limited purpose to release the interest on the arrears of salary, which were ultimately released to the petitioner on 22.02.2018. It is apparent that in the present case, respondent No.2 is adopting hypertechnical approach in denying the lawful claim of the present petitioner. In fact the respondent-State cannot escape from its liability of paying the interest on the delayed payment by referring to the order dated 26.07.2017 passed by this Court in CWP No.19145 of 2014. In fact, while allowing the claim of the petitioner, this Court had held that she was entitled to all consequential benefits emanating from the date of reluglarisation to be reckoned w.e.f. 28.08.2011. Such consequential benefits would include the interest on delayed payment. In fact, the State is always obliged to act as a model employer and cannot act a private financer. The State is always under a legal obligation to make the due payments to its employees on time and in the event of any unjustified delay in the disbursement of such
payments, due to the fault of the employer, the State is legally bound to pay the arrears along with interest.
11.
Even as per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.Randhawa v. State of Punjab. reported as 1997 (3) SCT468, if the benefit to the employee is not released immediately and there is unjustified delay, the employee will be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as under:- "11.
Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement.
12.
Further, while deciding CWP-15867-2001, titled as J.S.Cheema v. State of Haryana and others, reported as 2014
(13) RCR (Civil) 355 on 20.11.2013, it has been held that once an amount has been retained by the Department, the same should be released with interest in case it is found that the
) retention of the amount was unjustified. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- "The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is laying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it."
12.
Keeping in view the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.08.2011 to 22.02.2018 and the same be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
)* )* *-*-. . : ; .: D.#
;
D.#