Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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