HC orders Haryana to pay Rs 75,000 for harassment of retired employee

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised the Haryana Government for subjecting a retired employee to repeated pleas for his rightful benefits, directing the state to pay Rs 75,000 in compensation to the petitioner for the harassment caused.

"An employer is liable to compensate an employee with interest for the harassment caused due to withholding of retirement benefits without any justifiable reason, and for being prevented from using the same," asserted Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya while delivering the judgment.

The case involved a retired Director of Secondary Education, who superannuated on May 31, 2016. However, his "due amount of gratuity" was withheld and only released after a delay of over four-and-a-half years on December 29, 2020.

Justice Dahiya set aside a previous order dated November 24, 2020, which had deemed the petitioner disentitled to interest on the delayed gratuity payment. The court directed the government to recover both the withheld amount and the imposed costs from the officers responsible for the delay. "This exercise shall be completed within six months. Within four weeks thereafter, a compliance affidavit to that effect shall be filed by the Chief Secretary," the court ordered.

The court condemned the state for baselessly denying the petitioner his gratuity, referencing a letter that falsely claimed the petitioner had pending dues for government accommodation. Justice Dahiya highlighted that a letter from the Chief Secretary's office had, in fact, requested a ‘no dues certificate’ for the petitioner.

The court added that the petitioner suffered humiliation, forced to repeatedly appeal for the release of his legally entitled funds. The state was under a legal obligation to release the gratuity without delay, and no regulation could justify the withholding of the payment under the circumstances.

The Bench also noted that, in addition to the emotional and financial distress caused to the petitioner, the state unjustly benefitted by retaining and using the amount. "This is sheer high-handedness and misuse of power to deny rightful dues to an employee on dubious grounds, and is deprecated being reprehensible," Justice Dahiya remarked, adding that the two respondents were liable for penal interest as well as the costs of the petition.