JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release interest on the delayed release of gratuity amount to the petitioner.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2006, however, her gratuity was withheld by the respondents and recovery of Rs.4,03,882/- was ordered against the petitioner on account of excess payment made to her in the shape of additional increments of higher qualification. The said action of recovering a sum of Rs.4,03,882/- was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.6830 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 30.03.2012 in terms of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Beant Singh v. State of Punjab : 2010 (25) SCT 715, wherein it was held that no recovery could be made from the petitioners as there was no misrepresentation on their part and the said writ petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent leaving the official respondents to re-fix the pay of the petitioners without effecting any recovery.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the payment of gratuity of Rs.2,74,050/- has been released to the petitioner on 11.07.2023, however, no interest has been paid on the said delayed payment.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 by way of short affidavit of Jatinder Kumar Bansal, Assistant Director (Establishment-2) Office of Directorate of School Education (Elementary), it has been stated as under:-

“4. That at the time of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.03.2006, the gratuity of the petitioner was withheld as per the direction of Accountant General, Punjab by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer. This amount of gratuity Rs.2,74,050/- was required to be paid to the petitioner atleast after finality was attained in of her CWP No. 6830 of 2005 tilted as Gurnam Singh and others Versus State of Punjab wherein the petitioner was at Sr. No. 281. However, the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer failed to make this payment on 30.03.2012 (Date of Judgment of CWP No. 6830 of 2005).

5. That the department sought detailed information regarding this delayed payment from the office of District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Jalandhar vide letter dated 05.09.2025. The office of District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Jalandhar vide their letter dated 09.09.2025 informed that the concerned officers/officials did not show their seriousness for the payment of Death Cum Retiring Gratuity of the petitioner during the year of 2012.

6. That as per the information provided by District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Jalandhar, there is delay on the part of some officials of concerned Block Primary Education Officer, who was Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Therefore, the department has already directed the District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Jalandhar to conduct preliminary enquiry regarding this delayed payment to the petitioner in a time bound manner. A copy of this letter is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2.

7. That after receiving the report of preliminary enquiry, the department will take appropriate steps for payment of delayed payment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Death Cum Retiral Benefits has already been paid to the petitioner on 11.07.2023. The decision regarding interest on delayed payment will be taken up after preliminary enquiry. If the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on delayed payment is found legally sustainable, then such payment will be made to the petitioner after adopting due procedure.”

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In nutshell, it has been stated by the respondent-State that the delay is on the part of some officials of the concerned Block Primary Educat