214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 BAL MUKAND ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sumit Saddi, Advocate and Mr. Karanvir Singh Kathuria, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate and Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1 The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment of interest on the delayed payments of pensionary benefits @ 12 % per annum from the date of due payments to the date of actual payments.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 31.05.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation. The pension payment order of the petitioner was prepared on 26.08.2013. The first cheque as arrears of pensionary benefits was issued only on 31.10.2013 and the remaining amount was paid on 19.12.2013. The petitioner represented to the respondents seeking interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, which is discernible from representation dated 19.03.2014 (Annexure P-3), which remains unheeded. Hence, the present petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Nigam submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In terms of the charge sheet issued on 17.10.2003, the petitioner was held responsible for embezzlement of Rs.3,29,640/-. The petitioner was punished for recovery of Rs.27,910/- after concluding the inquiry on 30.12.2005. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and thereafter, he filed CWP-6043-2009 which was also dismissed on 29.01.2009. An intra-Court appeal i.e. LPA-978-2011 was filed against the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which is still pending as admitted case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It transpires that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.10.2003, which culminated on 30.12.2005 and he was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect along with recovery of interest of Rs.27,910/-. Admittedly the disciplinary proceedings concluded on 30.12.2005 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 08.02.2008 and he retired on 31.05.2007. On the eve of his retirement, there were no pending disciplinary proceedings against him. At the most, the respondent-Nigam could have withheld Rs.27,910/-. The retiral dues of the petitioner including gratuity, leave encashment were not released. On 26.08.2013, the PPO & GPO in respect of the petitioner was issued by the Chief Accounts Officer of UHBVNL Panchkula and the following payments were made to the petitioner:-

5. As such, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein 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.