Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091114
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-17-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.25555 of 2012 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.25555 of 2012 date of decision: 17.09.2013 rohtash kumar ........petitioner versus state of haryana and others ........respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice ajay tewari present: mr.ashok kumar , advocate for the petitioner. ms.shruti goyal, aag, haryana. **** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. ajay tewari, j. (oral).the petitioner was dismissed in the year 1995. he challenged the order of his dismissal but ultimately the same was upheld. after the challenge to his dismissal was over he put in his claim for provident fund. an amount of ` 51,120/- was paid to him in july, 2012 which represented the amount of his provident fund along with interest up to the date of his dismissal. by way of the present writ petition the petitioner claims that he should be granted interest on his gpf amount till the date of payment i.e.july, 2012. in reply the plea taken is that the petitioner had submitted the complete papers for the payment of gpf only in 2012, consequently the gpf was rightly paid to him after calculating the interest up to the date of nagpal sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.25555 of 2012 2 his dismissal. further that since the petitioner approached the respondents for his gpf only after 17 years the respondents were under no duty to pay him interest till then. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after his dismissal the petitioner had challenged that order. this court had at one stage directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner but even thereafter the respondents had reiterated the order of dismissal and it was then that the petitioner had decided to accept the order of dismissal and had laid claim for his provident fund. learned counsel has further argued that the plea of the respondents that there is no negligence on their part is not and cannot be a complete answer. as per him the basic justification for interest is always the fact that money belonging to one person is being put to use by another person. if that is compounded by negligence there may be a claim for even higher interest. he has given the example of banks where even if a fixed deposit is up to a particular date and it is encashed subsequently, the bank is liable to pay interest till the date of encashment. he has further relied upon gurcharan singh v. state of punjab reported as 1999(2) sct817wherein a division bench of this court held as follows:- “6. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. in our opinion , there is no legal justifications to withhold the amount of gpf payable to the petitioner because what he is claiming is his own property which was kept in trust with the government. that apart, the unequivocal admission made by the respondents about the preparation of documents on the issue of payment of gpf, there does not remain any justification for non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner which must be treated as his property in view of the various decisions of the supreme court ...............”. nagpal sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.25555 of 2012 3 8. for the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is partly allowed. the respondents are directed to pay the amount of gpf due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% within a period of one month of the submission of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall have to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum.”. learned aag has reiterated the plea taken in reply viz. that since the petitioner approached the respondents for his gpf after 17 years the respondents were under no duty to pay him interest till then. as regards the example given by learned counsel for the petitioner of banks, learned aag has argued that banks are admittedly commercial entities and, therefore, they would obviously be liable to pay interest. in rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even as per the website of respondent no.4 document annexure p-7 shows the amount of gpf in the account of the petitioner from the years 2002 -2003 to 2008-2009. the document in the year 2002-2003 shows the closing balance in the gpf account of the petitioner at ` 90, 366/- while that for the year 2008-2009 shows the closing balance at an amount of ` 1, 43, 399/- . he further asserts that as regards the refutation of the example of the bank, the petitioner is not seeking interest at the bank rate but is seeking at any requisite rate which this court may deem appropriate. in my considered opinion the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner carries more weight. though in the present case no negligence can be attributed to the respondents in not releasing the amount of provident fund, yet it cannot also be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner lay with the respondents for their use and as per their own records they were creating interest on it year to year. nagpal sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.25555 of 2012 4 in these circumstances and in view of the decision in gurcharan singh's case (supra) this petition is allowed. respondents are directed to release the statutory interest which has fallen due to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. in case the payment is not made within two months the petitioner would be entitled to claim the amount due with further interest at the rate of 8% p.a.from the date fixed by the present order. (ajay tewari) judge september 17 , 2013 sunita nagpal sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CWP No.25555 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25555 of 2012 Date of Decision: 17.09.2013 Rohtash Kumar ........Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar , Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Shruti Goyal, AAG, Haryana.

**** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Ajay Tewari, J.

(Oral).The petitioner was dismissed in the year 1995.

He challenged the order of his dismissal but ultimately the same was upheld.

After the challenge to his dismissal was over he put in his claim for provident fund.

An amount of ` 51,120/- was paid to him in July, 2012 which represented the amount of his provident fund along with interest up to the date of his dismissal.

By way of the present writ petition the petitioner claims that he should be granted interest on his GPF amount till the date of payment i.e.July, 2012.

In reply the plea taken is that the petitioner had submitted the complete papers for the payment of GPF only in 2012, consequently the GPF was rightly paid to him after calculating the interest up to the date of Nagpal Sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25555 of 2012 2 his dismissal.

Further that since the petitioner approached the respondents for his GPF only after 17 years the respondents were under no duty to pay him interest till then.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after his dismissal the petitioner had challenged that order.

This Court had at one stage directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner but even thereafter the respondents had reiterated the order of dismissal and it was then that the petitioner had decided to accept the order of dismissal and had laid claim for his provident fund.

Learned counsel has further argued that the plea of the respondents that there is no negligence on their part is not and cannot be a complete answer.

As per him the basic justification for interest is always the fact that money belonging to one person is being put to use by another person.

If that is compounded by negligence there may be a claim for even higher interest.

He has given the example of banks where even if a fixed deposit is up to a particular date and it is encashed subsequently, the bank is liable to pay interest till the date of encashment.

He has further relied upon Gurcharan Singh v.

State of Punjab reported as 1999(2) SCT817wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “6.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In our opinion , there is no legal justifications to withhold the amount of GPF payable to the petitioner because what he is claiming is his own property which was kept in trust with the government.

That apart, the unequivocal admission made by the respondents about the preparation of documents on the issue of payment of GPF, there does not remain any justification for non-payment of the amount due to the petitioner which must be treated as his property in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court ...............”

.

Nagpal Sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25555 of 2012 3 8.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is partly allowed.

The respondents are directed to pay the amount of GPF due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% within a period of one month of the submission of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents shall have to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum.”

.

Learned AAG has reiterated the plea taken in reply viz.

that since the petitioner approached the respondents for his GPF after 17 years the respondents were under no duty to pay him interest till then.

As regards the example given by learned counsel for the petitioner of banks, learned AAG has argued that banks are admittedly commercial entities and, therefore, they would obviously be liable to pay interest.

In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even as per the website of respondent No.4 document Annexure P-7 shows the amount of GPF in the account of the petitioner from the years 2002 -2003 to 2008-2009.

The document in the year 2002-2003 shows the closing balance in the GPF account of the petitioner at ` 90, 366/- while that for the year 2008-2009 shows the closing balance at an amount of ` 1, 43, 399/- .

He further asserts that as regards the refutation of the example of the bank, the petitioner is not seeking interest at the bank rate but is seeking at any requisite rate which this Court may deem appropriate.

In my considered opinion the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner carries more weight.

Though in the present case no negligence can be attributed to the respondents in not releasing the amount of provident fund, yet it cannot also be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner lay with the respondents for their use and as per their own records they were creating interest on it year to year.

Nagpal Sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.25555 of 2012 4 In these circumstances and in view of the decision in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) this petition is allowed.

Respondents are directed to release the statutory interest which has fallen due to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In case the payment is not made within two months the petitioner would be entitled to claim the amount due with further interest at the rate of 8% p.a.from the date fixed by the present order.

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 17 , 2013 sunita Nagpal Sunita 2013.09.23 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document