- (1.) The writ petition seeks for the payment of terminal benefits for a person, who had retired as a Sub Divisional Engineer from PWD, Punjab. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had retired on 31.12.1990 and the gratuity had been paid to him on 03.01.1993 reckoned as Rs.39,296/-after deducting Rs.16,804/-. The pension had been commuted and paid on 17.02.1992. The petitioner has a grievance that the deduction from gratuity was impermissible and the delays caused in the payment of gratuity as well as the commuted pension were untenable. He would, therefore, seek for release of the arrears with interest at 18%.
(2.) The reply filed by the State gives an explanation that Rs.16,804/-which was deducted out of gratuity amount comprised of Rs.8,804/-an amount that was alleged to have been caused as a loss by the petitioner when he was in service under the Chief Engineer, Haryana, before 1966 and another Rs.8,000/-was the amount of alleged misappropriation of Government materials during the year 1975-76. The deductions were said to have been caused on account of the letter of the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, received by the State on 21.01.1992. I am unable to accept as to how a loss alleged to have been caused before 1966 or the goods alleged to have been misappropriated in the year 1975-76 could have been so assessed without any form of enquiry. Any unilateral decision of either the Chief Engineer, Haryana, or a recommendation by the Vigilance Department without involving the petitioner in a charge-sheet and an enquiry could afford no basis for deduction of the said amount. I would find the deduction to be untenable, for the written statement does not even spell out when the so-called enquiry was constituted or what was the outcome of such enquiry. Even a mere issuance of a charge-sheet cannot conclude the issue, assuming that the petitioner had been served with any such charge-sheets for the alleged loss or the alleged misappropriation. The deduction of Rs.16,804/-was impermissible and the petitioner is entitled to the said amount with interest which I will quantify at 18% per annum from 01.01.1991. The respondents have taken time to release even the gratuity amount by making the payment only on 03.01.1993. The amount of Rs.39,296/-which has been released on 03.01.1993 shall also bear interest from 01.01.1991 at 9% upto 03.01.1993. I would make a differential rate of interest only on account of the fact that the delay is not too long and the payment which has been done in about two years time, I would think 9% interest would be appropriate.
(3.) As regards the commuted value of pension, there are no definite details about when the application for option for commutation was made by the petitioner. The payment of pension made on 07.12.1992 is still about two years considering the fact that the pension was payable on 01.01.1991 and I would make the respondents liable also for interest at 9% from 01.01.1991 to 07.12.1992. All the amounts as calculated shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from today. If the amounts are not so released, the total amount on what is determined, being the aggregate of the interest components on the delayed payments of commuted pension and gratuity and the principal amount of Rs.16,804/-which was wrongly withheld would also become payable with interest at 7.5% from today.;