Sukhchain Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

 

  

                



  !    " 

 #  $     "         #   "  "  % 

   "   # 

      #  $        

    "    &          # 

!

 

*  ++!     "

  ,
    

  

                                 

               

                    

     

                                

     

 

    

          



    !  

    

   

                        

      " 

  ##  

           

 

 

$ 

    

                  

       

        %        ' 

        

 

   ( & ) *

 &  

+ , -.(  

 

   

  

   /     





  ##  

    

  

   

&

 

     #          

   

             



        

 

   

  

            

       - 

  

   "  

 #

"              .    "   /



      "             #   "   "     #  " 

 % #    "   " $   "  "   "    #

!    0 )   #   -1-   

   "    )  2#  3  )   "

   +$  4      $  5  $  

"    

       /1- &   

 "     #            "  #  6  -  1-   6  7  1-    4 4!   

 #

 ' - 5

    "   #              1  )



   #         "   #   

  



8 + #   

    "  "

 

    7 +  "           "    

    

"   # 

  ! % #    

  !        "   #    #  "  "   #

!

 

*  ++! + 

     

  !  # $   "    % #   ""    "    

   "   -1-   $ 

  

  "      $   /1-     "     "   "   1- % #  "       

      

 5

  "       9 0: "    "   

  1-       "  "    10.

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) SCT 468, 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."

11.

 





             



 

!  



   

"

  

  

 



 



          

 

   

 



        

   5 "   "      #    "" 

!    

 

 

   

.

; )".<'

, =>) < 64 ; '"

, =>) < 64