RSA-961-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal Naranjan Singh and others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. LAPITA BANERJI CM-3463-C-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of filing the appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-appellant. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal is Application is Main case Under challenge in the present regular second appe judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest @ 12% per annum on the retiral benefits the filing of the suit 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM RSA Date of Decision : The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal Versus Naranjan Singh and others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. (Oral) 2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of filing the appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. Under challenge in the present regular second appe judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest r annum on the retiral benefits for a period o of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3463-C-2025 in/and RSA-961-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.04.2025 The Senior Executive Engineer/Distribution Mandal …Appellant …Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI This is an application for condonation of delay of 121 days in Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and grounds made out in the application, the delay of 121 days in Under challenge in the present regular second appeal is the judgment dated July 15, 2024 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge had set aside the judgment and decree dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bathinda and held that the plaintiff is entitled to grant of interest for a period of 38 months prior to till the date of actual disbursement. VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-961-2025 (O&M) 2. The facts of the case are i) The plaintiff Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on March 31, 2006. ii) Vide impugned order dated S defendant No.2 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. iii) Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity encashment benefits. iv) Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the employer against the consent to the benefits. v) The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation outstanding amount but nor disbursed the pensionary benefits vi) The appellant statement. were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% provisional pension instead of also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/ plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to the department. 2025 (O&M) The facts of the case are narrated The plaintiff-respondent retired as an Additional Assistant Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on March 31, 2006. Vide impugned order dated September 18, 2006 passed by defendant No.2-employer/appellant, the plaintiff was allowed 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity encashment benefits. Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the employer-appellant that a sum of Rs.6 against the plaintiff and the plaintiff was required consent to the said recovery, for benefits. The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation outstanding amount but the employer nor disbursed the pensionary benefits The appellant-employer contested the suit and filed a written statement. It was agitated that since the departmental proceedings were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% provisional pension instead of 90% of provisional pension. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/ plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to the department. hereinafter:- retired as an Additional Assistant Engineer of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mansa on eptember 18, 2006 passed by employer/appellant, the plaintiff was allowed 66% of his provisional pension, although under the rules he was entitled to be paid provisional pension of 90%. Despite repeated requests and lapse of more than 7 years, the plaintiff was not paid his full pension or gratuity or leave Vide office order dated January 19, 2010, it was indicated by the that a sum of Rs.6,30,567.40 was outstanding plaintiff and the plaintiff was required to give his for release of his pensionary The plaintiff had requested for a detailed calculation of the said the employer neither provided the same nor disbursed the pensionary benefits. contested the suit and filed a written that since the departmental proceedings were pending against the plaintiff, he was eligible for 66% of the 90% of provisional pension. It was also alleged that a sum of Rs.1,65,045/- was not paid by the plaintiff on account of unused material that was not returned to VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-961-2025 (O&M) vii) Furthermore, failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567. pensionary benefits and the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. viii) During the penden disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits ix) The plaintiff disbursal of retiral benefits by prayers. 3. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on re finding that despite the failed to disburse the same for mor 5. The learned District Judge held that at the time superannuated to the extent of 66% was paid to him instead of provisional dated January 19, 2010 sum of more than 6 lakhs was payable by him outstanding amoun by him. 6. The first Appellate Court did not agree with the finding that the 2025 (O&M) Furthermore, it was sought to be urged i failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567. pensionary benefits and there was no delay or lapse on the part of the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the appeal, th disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits The plaintiff had prayed for 12% interest per annum, for lat disbursal of retiral benefits by incorporating supplementary prayers. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned District Judge came to the finding that despite the plaintiff claiming full retiral benefits, the defendant failed to disburse the same for more than 7 years The learned District Judge held that at the time uperannuated with effect from March 31, 2006, to the extent of 66% was paid to him vide order dated September 18, 2006, instead of provisional pension of 90%, without any valid reason. dated January 19, 2010, the department communicated to the plaintiff that than 6 lakhs was payable by him outstanding amount was provided to the plaintiff, despite several requests The first Appellate Court did not agree with the finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case and was not entitled to it was sought to be urged in defence that plaintiff failed to give consent for recovery of Rs.6,30,567.64 from his here was no delay or lapse on the part of the employer for late disbursement of the pensionary benefits. cy of the appeal, the appellant-employer had disbursed the full retiral benefits to the plaintiff. However, no interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits was paid. prayed for 12% interest per annum, for late incorporating supplementary It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no provision of urging supplementary grounds in the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and cord, the learned District Judge came to the full retiral benefits, the defendants e than 7 years. The learned District Judge held that at the time plaintiff effect from March 31, 2006, provisional pension only vide order dated September 18, 2006, pension of 90%, without any valid reason. Vide order communicated to the plaintiff that than 6 lakhs was payable by him, but no details for the said t was provided to the plaintiff, despite several requests The first Appellate Court did not agree with the trial Court’s plaintiff had failed to prove his case and was not entitled to VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-961-2025 (O&M) any relief. Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court it however directed the appellant proceedings against the judgment/decree. 7. The learned hyper technical objection with regard to supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of (Dead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs upon to come to the finding that subsequent events consideration i to subsequent change of circumstances t inappropriate or in order to 8. Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held that it was necessary to take into account the grant of interest for pension to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff passing of the judgment in 9. Therefore, t provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. ground was made out at all b was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. 10. The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground for withholding the pension of the p 2025 (O&M) Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court it however directed the appellant proceedings against the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of judgment/decree. The learned DJ held that the appellant hyper technical objection with regard to supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of ead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs” upon to come to the finding that subsequent events consideration in the event, the same leads to shortening of litigation or due to subsequent change of circumstances t inappropriate or in order to do complete justice between the parties. Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held ecessary to take into account the grant of interest for unauthorizedly restricting the grant of on to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff ng of the judgment in appeal. Therefore, there was no reason provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. ground was made out at all by the employer to show why the full pen was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground for withholding the pension of the plaintiff was Though the relief sought for by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court it however directed the appellant-employer to conclude the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of held that the appellant-defendants had taken a hyper technical objection with regard to the issue of filing of supplementary grounds of appeal. The case of “Kedar Nath Agrawal 2004 (8) SCC 76 was relied upon to come to the finding that subsequent events could be taken into leads to shortening of litigation or due to subsequent change of circumstances the original relief becomes complete justice between the parties. Since during the pendency of the appeal, the entire retiral benefits had been granted to the plaintiff, the learned District Judge held subsequent events and direct restricting the grant of provisional on to the plaintiff to 66% only as admittedly there were no departmental proceedings pending against the plaintiff till the date of reason for the employer to grant provisional pension to the plaintiff to the tune of 66% instead of 90%. No y the employer to show why the full pension was not granted to the plaintiff for more than 7 years after his retirement. The basis on which alleged recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made was also not brought on record. The primary ground was on account of pendency of VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-961-2025 (O&M) departmental proceedings appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fa that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the component was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the perused the material on record. 12. It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of mo Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to support the contention of the appellant proceedings were pending against the plain 13. The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty and is entitlement of the employee employee serves on a pensionable p a pensionable post. and could not reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court “Uttar Pradesh State of Uttar Pradesh and another is set out hereinafter: “46. judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a 2025 (O&M) departmental proceedings which could not be appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fa that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the suit till the date of actual disbursement. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the perused the material on record. It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in reasoned judgment passed by the learned District Judge. has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of mo Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to support the contention of the appellant-defendants that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the plaintiff. The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty is entitlement of the employee on superannuation as long as the employee serves on a pensionable post. Admittedly, the plaintiff served on a pensionable post. Therefore, the same had to be disbursed expeditiously could not be withheld without any justifiable reason. A beneficial reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court radesh Roadways Retired Official and Officers Association Vs. ttar Pradesh and another”, (2024) is set out hereinafter:- 46. The common thread in the judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a be proved by the employer- appellant. Therefore, the learned District Judge granted interest @ 12% per annum on the outstanding retiral dues of the plaintiff. Considering the fact that the suit was filed after 6 years from the date of retirement, the interest was restricted to 38 months from the date of institution of the This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and It appears to the mind of this Court that there is no infirmity in passed by the learned District Judge. Nothing has been brought on record to show why and how the recovery of more than Rs.6 lakhs was sought to be made against the plaintiff/respondent. Furthermore, there was no corroborating evidence brought on record to defendants that disciplinary tiff. The law with regard to disbursal of pensionary benefits is well settled by the Apex Court. Pension is not a bounty but a constitutional right on superannuation as long as the . Admittedly, the plaintiff served on to be disbursed expeditiously be withheld without any justifiable reason. A beneficial reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roadways Retired Official and Officers Association Vs. ) 9 SCC 331. Relevant extract The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-961-2025 (O&M) bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. I Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.” 14. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the District Judge merits no interference. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961 dismissed. 16. Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed of. April 21, 202 Vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.” Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the District Judge merits no interference. In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961 Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (LAPITA BAN JUDGE 2025 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. However, pension can be claimed only when it is permissible under the relevant rules or f an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned In view of the aforesaid discussion, RSA No.961-2025 is Connected applications, if any, are also accordingly disposed (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.04.23 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document