Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shekher Dhawan, J., dealt with a writ petition for the release of retiral benefits i.e. leave encashment to the petitioner. 

Petitioner had filed the instant petition for the release of leave encashment as a retiral benefit. Facts of the case were that a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner after which he got retired from the service. Petitioner contended that an employee like him, if had already retired, only his gratuity could have been withheld but not other retiral benefits in accordance with the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Limited v. Pyare Lal, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 15012.

High Court viewed that controversy was restricted to petitioner’s prayer for leave encashment and by virtue of decision referred above it had already been decided that leave encashment cannot be withheld. With the above view, the petition was disposed of. [Pawan Kumar v. Punjab State Co-operative Societies,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1677, decided on 02-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arijit Banerjee, J. disposed of a writ petition by granting payment of interest to a retired employee on the amount of delayed payment of pension.

The petitioner was retired in 2007 while working as a teacher in a higher secondary school. The first payment order was issued in 2007 itself. Under ROPA Rules, 2009 there was a revision of pensionary and gratuity amount payable to the petitioner which order was made in 2012. The arrear revised pension was disbursed in 2013. The petitioner claimed interest on delayed payment of revised pension.

The High Court, at the outset, observed that the Limitation Act in terms does not apply to writ petition. Furthermore, it is a settled law that a retired employee is entitled to some amount of interest on delayed payment of pension. In the present case, it was a bounden duty of the State to disburse the due date. If it failed to do so and released such amount after an unexplained delay, it was obliged to pay interest to the retired employee. In such view of the matter, the Court directed the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance to pay interest to the writ petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrear of revised pension calculated on and from 1 June 2009 till actual date of payment. The petition was disposed of in the terms above. [Purna Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B.,2018 SCC OnLine Cal 7366, dated 03-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: The writ petition was preferred by a primary school teacher, aggrieved that an amount of Rs. 68, 556 was deducted from the pension payment order by the authorities, due to alleged over-drawl.

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, by relying on the Supreme Court’s decision of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 contends that the excess amount can’t be recovered from the retiral benefit of an employee unless it is due to some fraud or misrepresentation. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475 the Supreme Court observed that “the relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered.”

Therefore,  Arijit Banerjee, J. quoted the observation of another learned Judge, “the choice is like choosing between the devil and deep sea” and ordered that, by considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma, Syed Abdul Qadir, Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 and State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 held that no recovery can be made from a retired employee who is due to retire within one year from the order of recovery. Further, no recovery could be made in the present case from the retrial benefits of the petitioner even after a delay of 15 years by considering the decision of the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 3 SCC 648, as it did not affect the third party rights. [Jaynal Alam v. State of West Bengal, 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 10406, decided on 12.07.2017]