Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Immediate Entitlement to Pension and Benefits Casts Duty on State: Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs Payment of Interest on Delayed Retiral Benefits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed the issue of delayed payment of retiral benefits, emphasizing the state's duty to ensure timely disbursement. Justice Namit Kumar, in the case of Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, underscored the government's obligation to promptly release retirement benefits, including General Provident Fund (GPF) and gratuity, to its employees.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer, sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order denying interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, alongside a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release interest on delayed payment of GPF and gratuity. The core legal point revolved around the entitlement of a retired employee to interest on delayed retiral benefits.

Jatinder Pal Singh, the petitioner, faced delays in receiving his retiral benefits post-retirement in 2013. After serving a legal notice and filing a previous writ petition, the respondents directed to consider his claim, refused to pay interest on the delayed benefits, leading to the current petition. The respondents justified the delay citing the petitioner's late submission of necessary documents, including property details under Conduct Rules.

Justice Namit Kumar, after examining the arguments and precedents, observed that the delay in releasing gratuity and GPF payments was unjustified. Citing the A.S. Randhawa and J.S. Cheema cases, the Court noted that employees are entitled to interest on delayed payments when the delay is not justifiable. The Court found that there was no reasonable ground to withhold the gratuity payment post the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the respondents to pay interest on the GPF amount from the date of retirement to the date of payment at the applicable GPF interest rate. Furthermore, the Court ordered the payment of 6% interest on delayed gratuity from the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings to the date of gratuity payment.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2024

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited

Latest Legal News