Retired Employee Can Only Lead A Dignified Life If He Is Allowed Retiral Benefits In Time: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Observing that "a retired employees can only lead a dignified life in case he is allowed the retiral benefits in time," the Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Punjab's Municipal Council for compelling a class IV retired employee, to file three cases for claiming her legitimate dues.

While holding that the Safai Sewak will be entitled for the interest for delaying her retiral benefits Justice Namit Kumar said that, "retired employees have to support their life on the retiral benefits only. A retired employee can only lead a dignified life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in case he/she is allowed the retiral benefits in time. In the absence of the release of the retiral benefits, no retired employee will be able to lead a dignified life, which will be contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by Shakuntala Devi, a Safai Sewak under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to Punjab's Municipal Council Tapa to release the complete retrial benefits and interest on the delayed payment.

It was case of Shakuntala Devi that although she retired as Safai Sewak from service in 2020 from the office of Municipal Council, Tapa, after serving the department for over 35 years and despite making various representations followed by legal notice, the retiral benefits were not released.

Devi also moved High Court in 2021 and the Court directed the Municipality to decide the legal notice, by passing a speaking order within a period of 01 month, however, nothing was done by the respondents.

The petitioner then served contempt notice and thereafter, it was admitted by the respondents that a sum of Rs.13,56,993 is due to be paid to the petitioner on account of gratuity and leave encashment, however, only a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- were paid to the petitioner, by issuing various cheques ranging from 31.12.2020 to 24.01.2022 and still the remaining due amount is of Rs.9,31,993, the plea stated.

The counsel for the respondents opposed the plea of the petitioner for the grant of interest on the ground the delay has occurred in releasing the pensionary dues that due to poor financial condition of the Municipal Council, Tapa.

The Municipal Council, Tapa is already under financial crisis and, therefore, the grant of interest will put further burden upon the Municipal Council and hence, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest may be declined, he added.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the contention of Municipal Council that the the weak financial position can be taken as a ground to decline the pensionary benefits to the retired employees.

Reliance was placed upon High Court's decision in Ram Karan Vs. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, 2005(3) PLR 580, wherein it has been held that keeping in view the fact that the State is a welfare State and the retired employees have no other source of income to lead a dignified life, the retiral benefits cannot be declined or withheld on account of financial difficulty.

Justice Kumar noted that it is clear that there was no impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. "There were no proceedings pending against the petitioner, which would entitle the respondents to withhold her pensionary benefits. The only reason, which has been advanced by learned counsel for the respondents not to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is financial instability of the Municipal Council, Tapa."

The Court said that as per the settled principle of law in Ram Karan's case (supra), financial instability is no ground to withhold the pensionary benefits, the same cannot be projected to justify the inaction on the part of the Municipal Council for not releasing the pensionary benefits of the retired employees.

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum.

It directed the Municipal Council to grant interest to the petitioner, from the date the amount became due till the same was actually released to the petitioner.

While disposing of the plea the Court added that, "Petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs as she, being a class IV retired employee, had to file three cases for claiming her legitimate dues. The same is assessed at Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by respondent No.3 (Municipal Council) within a period of 06 weeks."

Sonia G. Singh with Amandeep Kaur, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ajit Singh Natt, AAG, Punjab.

Amrita Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 77

Shakuntla Devi v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order