Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kakkar v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25169 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.04.2024
Petitioner
Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
!"#$
& !"'"(! )))) HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J (Oral) * % %
! # $ , ,
' - # $
%
.//0/*,
'' ',
#
, -1 $
%& $
$!
, $ '
-% -
,
2% $- !
# '%'
$ $
%
.//0/* %$
! -
''$ -%'
# 1, % ,
%
3
$
'
,-
4+51 $
!,
4+56.07 *8/8//* % # 1 $
4+5!
1''1
& $ '$
1 1 5 ' 8* 9 # ' # $ :
;5 ' !/*<
CWP251692022 2024:PHHC:049508 . + # ' $
' % #
$1 ,'
$ 7 - , $ -%' $
%$
$ - '%$
%
-%'=% $ %$
>%'
, ?,' %- 9 + 1 '%
' @Union of India Vs.
K.V. Jankiraman", 1991 (4) SCC 109"
% ?,' %-9 ! $ # '
-%' % '%$
! %$
,
,
-%' - ' '!1 $ - '
%$
! $ #, -
-%', $-% 9 ' 1!$ - '%$
- ,%
-%' !'# % % &
@6. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge!memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceed! ings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge!memo/charge! sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. "
< = $ - , ?,' %-9
+ ' ''
$ $ -
$
$ $%
% '%$
# 1!- $'
-1
.//0/*
$ - '%$
4+56 .07 *8/8/*! $ $ $ #, -
!# 1
-3B = , ! %
,
-
,'
$ ' #,
%% 8 ! -A
' 1$ - %$
, # $ 3"6.*7/. ' 1 %$
$ - '
%$
- & K.V. Jankiraman's case ( ) !
$ ' #, 1 '3 $
'
,' ,
$
' %$
1''
'% $ %'' 1 0 3 $
' $
# $-%'
, '
$! 5 '8*/*< ' %-
% '
! $ $4+5 '
*/ 4+5 A
, % '
qua '' %$
$ '
,
$- % # %
, 1
$-%'
% # 1 # 1 $ # - 4+5 prima facie$-
$ $'
'
'' '' ! 1 '',
- $
1 & $
5 '8*/*<5 ' ' '
1 1
-%'1 ' $ $ '
$! -$
, -% 4+51 $ ' -% $ 4+51 '', '
, & ?,' %-9
+ K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra).
** > A
1
'
"
% & 4 '' $
!"#! -%'
' ' %
1 % /-
-% - !
- -! -%' '
'
CWP251692022 2024:PHHC:049508 $-%
='# % % & 4 '' $ @
$
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." * - ' '! 9
$ 9 ' 1
-
,'
-%'
, %
# ! -%' ,$-
'
= '# % & %
, 9
$
9 % & '( )*!
++, --
"
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 lying 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." *. ' 1
.//0/*! 1 # ' &
$
= , !
,' -% - '
,
.//0/* $ $%
%
,
1 1 % 1- ! $!% # 1
' % $ %' ' 1! $ ,! %
-5- ,$-
'
$-%
- %& $$
*7 "$$ '! %
,
, ' '
D<E%
-
!- -
,$-
''
'
1 % /81 $ % $% * 3 , F% ## ' $' - ,
-, -
- % *< $$ ' 10th April, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE
% G H G6
% ,' H G6