- (1.) The petitioner challenges order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) whereby he has been denied the interest element on the delayed payment of retiral dues. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was on deputation with respondent no.3-Corporation in July, 1989 and on account of shortage of wheat he was charge sheeted in which he was exonerated. A civil suit was, however, filed by the Corporation for recovery on account of shortage of wheat which was in Malsia Centre which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Nakodar on 30.7.2005. Similarly for Shahkot Centre also, the proceedings have been dropped against the petitioner but the Civil Suit had been filed against him and another employee, namely, Roop Lal and the said suit was decreed on 21.11.2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner along with said employee was partly allowed and thereafter he has filed R.S.A. No.4199 of 2009 which stands admitted. As per direction issued, security has been furnished before the learned trial Court and interest of the Corporation stands duly secured. An order dated 21.9.2010 was passed whereby respondent no.2 declined to release his pensionary benefits which was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.7586 of 2012 which was allowed on 2.8.2012 (Annexure P/2). A direction was issued that retiral benefits be paid. However, issue of interest was kept open and the petitioner was given liberty to represent to the authorities which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 15.11.2012. Resultantly interest has been claimed on account of delayed payment since the petitioner retired on 31.5.2007 and the retiral dues were only paid after direction of this Court on 2.8.2012.
(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the State on the ground that a sum of Rs. 3,49,231/- stands decreed in favour of respondent no.3-Corporation and the matter is pending before this Court. The appeal against the dismissal of the suit on 30.7.2005, is also pending and the Corporation had vide letter dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure R/1) had recommended not to release the arrears of pensionary benefits since the decree has been passed in favour of the Corporation. It has accordingly been pleaded that finding of the Civil Court was against the petitioner and there was no occasion for the Department to release the pensionary benefits to him earlier.
(3.) The reasoning given by the respondent in the impugned order is that the security amount which has been given for Rs. 6 lacs would not be sufficient to cover the amount for which the recovery suit had been filed by the Punsup. On account of the finding of the Civil Court there was no occasion for the department to release the pensionary benefits and it was only due to intervention of this Court that they were being released and accordingly the petitioner was not entitled for the interest. The right of a person to the retiral dues has been held to be a valuable right which flows to employee by virtue of Rules which governs his employment. The Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 1971 AIR(SC) 1409 held that the right flows by virtue of Rules which have a statutory force and is not a bounty payable on the sweet will of the employer.;