IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3365-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Rajveer ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Sarbuland Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent No.4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the remaining amount of service-cum-retirement dues of the petitioner, such as Provident Fund, revised Pay Scale, Arrears of revised pay scale benefits of 01.01.2016, and all other benefits along with interest for delayed period, qua which a legal notice dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-8) has also been served by the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to release all the aforesaid service-cum-retirement benefits along with interest for delayed period.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that all admissible retiral dues have been released in favour of the petitioner and in support thereof, he has already provided the calculation sheet regarding the payments made to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that all admissible dues have been paid to the petitioner, however, there is a delay of 05 months in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner and as such, he is entitled for interest in terms of the judgment passed in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra) wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, the following was held:

“9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12% unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added)

6. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M.

Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429

7. In the view of the above discussions, the present petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to release the payment of interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed payment of retiral dues, to be calculated after the expiry of two months from the date of his retirement till its actual realization. The aforesaid payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of 0