Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.@mdashFeeling aggrieved against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned first appellate court, Bathinda, whereby the first appeal of the defendant was allowed dismissing the suit for declaration, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant appeal. Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the first appellate court in its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff retired as Octroi Clerk on 30.11.2000. The pensionary benefits of the plaintiff were not released and he filed a CWP No. 19485 of 2001 before this Court. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 13.12.2001 and ordered the payment of retiral benefits within one month but defendant No. 3 and Deputy Director, Local Govt., Bathinda did not take any action. The plaintiff again approached this Court through COCP No. 735 of 2002, filed against Deputy Director, Local Govt., Bathinda and the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Maur Mandi, vide its resolution No. 100 dated 4.6.2001 had resolved that payment of retiral benefits be given to the plaintiff. Another resolution No. 276 dated 3.2.2003 was passed and the amount was allowed to be paid through instalments. The plaintiff received the amount as below:-
The payment of pensionary benefits was delayed by the Deputy Director, Local Govt., Bathinda and the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Maur. The plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from the date when the amount became due till the date of payment. A notice u/s 80 CPC dated 29.12.2004 was served upon the defendants but to no effect. Hence the suit was filed.
2. In the written statement of defendants No. 1 & 3, legal objections were taken that the court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit; that the plaintiff had no cause of action; that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties namely State of Punjab through District Collector, Bathinda; that the suit was hopelessly time barred. On merits, it was not denied that the plaintiff retired as Octroi Clerk on 30.11.2000. It was admitted that the plaintiff filed a writ petition before this Court. It was also not denied that a Contempt of Court Petition was also filed by the plaintiff but it was stated that this Court never ordered for making any payment of interest. Municipal Council has made the payment in detail as per the entire satisfaction of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff after receiving the payment upto 31.3.2004, has illegally and with malafide intention is demanding interest thereon.
3. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff, is entitled for interest on the delayed payment pensionary benefits @ 18% p.a.? OPP.
3. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties namely State of Punjab through District Collector? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
7. Relief.
4. To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has duly proved his case. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010. Defendant-respondent-Municipal Council filed its first appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a senior citizen. He retired from the post of Octori Clerk. For seeking the release of his retiral benefits, he had to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 19485 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents-Municipal Council to pay retiral benefits of the plaintiff within one month. However, since the defendants-respondents failed to pay the amount, plaintiff had to approach this Court again by way of COCP No. 735 of 2002. Thereafter, the respondent-Municipal Council paid retiral benefits of the appellant but only by way of instalments for a period of more than one year, i.e. 4.2.2003 to 31.3.2004. Since the respondents withheld the retiral benefits of the appellant for unexplained and inordinate long period, thereby imposing the unwarranted litigation on the appellant, his suit was rightly allowed by the learned trial Court. However, since the learned first appellate court fell in serious error of law, while completely misreading facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, was patently illegal and the impugned judgment was not sustainable in law. Relying upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Chuhar Singh v. Bhakra Beas Management Board, 1999 (2) SCT 701, learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, by allowing the present appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled for the interest on his delayed payment of pensionary benefits, because the same was not granted by this Court at the time of disposing of his above-said writ petition vide order dated 13.12.2001. The learned Additional District Judge, rightly allowed the appeal of the municipal council and the impugned judgment was fully justified. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, this appeal deserves to be allowed for the following more than one reasons.
8. In view of the above-said peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court:-
"Whether the learned Additional District Judge has completely misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the order dated 13.12.2001 passed by this Court and the impugned judgment was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Full Bench of the court."
9. It is a matter of record that when the appellant retired from service on 13.5.2000, he was sent home empty handed. Nothing was paid to him on account of retiral benefits. After waiting for a reasonable time, he had to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 19485 of 2001. Following order was passed by Division Bench of this Court:-
"The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2000 while he was holding the post of Octroi Clerk. Despite his retirement and despite the decision of the Municipal Council, Maur in its meeting dated 4.6.2001, wherein he was found entitled to various service and retrial benefits, the petitioner has not been released any such benefits till date. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner served a legal notice dated 26.3.2001 (Annexure P-1 herein). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No. 5 to dispose of the legal notice, referred to above, within a certified time.
In view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of his claim, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 5 to decide the legal notice dated 26.03.2011, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to service and/or pensionary benefits, the same shall be calculated and released to him within a period of one month thereafter."
10. Plaintiff-appellant conceded before the learned trial Court that he would be satisfied in case he was awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits. The learned trial Court rightly appreciated the true facts of the case, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff holding him entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment of his pensionary benefits. However, the learned Additional District Judge completely misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the above-said order dated 13.12.2001 passed by this Court, so as to mean that this Court denied the interest to the appellant. This approach adopted by the learned Additional District Judge was not only factually incorrect but misconceived and illegal as well.
11. It is so said because payment of retiral benefits is not the bounty of the State. It is the right of the retiree for the long service rendered to the State. When a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council as to what was the justification not to pay the retiral benefits to the appellant in time, he had no answer. To another question as to why the appellant was not entitled for the interest on delayed payment of his retiral benefits in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, learned counsel for the respondent had again no answer. Thus, except the wholly misconceived approach, defendant-respondent/Municipal Council had nothing to say to deny the legally justified claim of the appellant for interest on delayed payment of his retiral benefits.
12. Entitlement of a retiree for claiming interest on delayed payment of his pensionary benefits has been duly recognised by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468. The Hon''ble Full Bench has settled this controversy in favour of the appellant holding that the employee would be entitled for interest from 12% to 18%, as per fact situation of each case as and when the payment of retiral benefits is delayed by the employer. The learned trial Court has very rightly granted the interest only @ 12% per annum. However, since the learned Additional District Judge miserably failed to appreciate the above-said material aspect of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
13. The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support from the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Chuhar Singh''s case (supra) and the relevant para 2 of the judgment reads as under:-
"Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have contended that they delay took place on account of indifferent attitude of respondent No. 5 as respondent No. 5 was required to transfer the G.P.F. Accounts of the petitioner but the same was not sent. Be that as it may, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had no justification to withhold the retrial benefits for sufficiently long period, and, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. We, therefore, direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment w.e.f. 1.4.1994 till the payment was made. The amount of interest shall be paid within three months and in case amount is not paid within three months, then the petitioner should be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the same is paid. In case respondent Nos. 1 to 4 feel that delay is on the part of respondent No. 5 then it shall remain open to them to take appropriate proceedings against respondent No. 5 in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be entitled to? 2000/- as costs of the writ petition to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 to 4."
14. Thus, the substantial question of law posed here-in-above is answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the respondents. It is held that the learned Additional District Judge fell in serious error of law while completely misreading the order passed by this Court and the impugned judgment was contrary to the law laid by the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa''s case (supra).
15. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation failed to support the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to take a different view than the one taken here-in-above. In fact, the claim of the appellant has been found squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa''s case (supra). The plaintiff-appellant is already about 72 years old. He has been unnecessarily forced by the respondent-Municipal Council to initiate this second round of litigation. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained.
16. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree have been found to be suffering from patent illegality and contrary to the law laid down by Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court because of which impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge are hereby set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, are hereby restored.
Resultantly, instant appeal stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.
