Kamlesh Kumari v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
!"# $% #&'('$)* + + ,-
,-
,-
.* / 0 .+ 1 1
!
" #$% #
& '( )*+,-.)*.,+/
" #$% #
& '( )*-0*-)*.,1/
" "22#$% #
& '( )*1+**)*.,1/
" 3 4 #$$#
55555
1 + , 0Vide this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which have been mentioned in the heading, are being disposed of, as the common question of law arises in all of them and for the purpose of passing this order, the facts are being taken from '( )*+,-.)*.,+
The present petition has been filed for release of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by the respondents, along with interest on the said delayed release of payments to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, after retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2016, there was no impediment in releasing his pensionary benefits by the respondents and they were under obligation to release the said benefits to him expeditiously, but without any valid justification, the said benefits were withheld by the respondents and the said pensionary benefits were ultimately released to the petitioner, starting from September, 2017 till August, 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the payments were released to him after a delay of stipulated period of two months by the respondents, as envisaged in
% 6 6
7 4 '6
!"#, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of pensionary benefits to him by the respondents.
The facts and circumstances of '( )*-0*-)*.,18'( ) *1+**)*.,1 '( )*+,-.)*.,+# 9%
% '( )*-0*-)*.,1#
: % 6
*.
.* *.,;
6
,+ .0 *.,;
% % #6 '( )*1+**)*.,1#
*;
.* *.,0
#6 %
%
#6 %
$# *.,0 7 # *.,1#
% % #
6 %
3 -'( )*1+**)*.,1
% #6 % %
%
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein they have submitted that the petitioner had filed a representation claiming a higher pay, which matter was under consideration with the respondent-Department, due to which, the pensionary benefits were not released to him within a period of two months after his retirement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It is a conceded fact that when the petitioners in these petitions retired from service, there was no impediment in releasing their pensionary benefits to them. Further, it is also a conceded fact that the said pensionary benefits were actually released to them after the delay of two months from the date of their retirement, which is clear from the facts which have come on record in these petitions.
As per the judgment passed in A.S. Randhawa's case&/#
6
6 6 %
<
!)
! "
# $
% & '
(
( (
( (
) In these petitions, no impediment has been brought to the notice of this Court, which would have given jurisdiction to the respondents to withhold the said pensionary benefits of the petitioners, and therefore, the delay in releasing the said benefits to the petitioners is attributable to the respondents only.
7
#%) 4 '#6 2 $ %
&' # % *.
,, *.,=#
6
#6 % %
#
#
%
)
#
%
#%
%
<
3 -
!) '
( *
+ (
$
' ( ' ((
( (
( % &'
((
( (
( ) Keeping in view the above, as the delay in releasing of the pensionary benefits to the petitioners is attributable upon the respondents alone, therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of interest on the said delayed release of pensionary benefits to them by the respondents, which is assessed at 6% per annum from the date the said benefits became due till the date, when the said pensionary benefits were actually released to them.
>
% %
% % 6 6
%
% % #
6 6
2
% %
% % %
+ + , 1-
, (
2 ? !
* (
!
3