A retired employee is entitled to interest on delayed retiral benefits if the State fails to disburse them within two months of retirement. Furthermore, rules or notifications issued post-retirement cannot be applied retrospectively to justify illegal recoveries or reduce benefits.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release unpaid/withheld retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, commutation of pension with interest @ 18% per annum. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to pay the petitioner 2nd ACP grade pay w.e.f. 01.02.2007 on completion of 20 years of regular satisfactory service under the provisions of Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 18% per annum, in the wake of order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2012 while holding the post of Secretary, Municipal Council, Fatehabad (Annexure P-1). At the time of his retirement, two charge-sheets dated 14.05.2007 and 13.02.2008 (Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively) were pending against him. The disciplinary proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing CWP-18956-2015, titled Daya Nand versus State of Haryana and another, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure P-16) with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Since the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the petitioner filed COCP-1181-2016, titled Daya Nand Sangwan versus Anil Kumar, decided on 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-19). During the pendency of the contempt petition, respondent No.1 passed a speaking order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18), whereby both the charge-sheets were dropped. While passing the said order, respondent No.1 not only dropped the charges but also directed release of all retiral dues, including grant of second ACP w.e.f. 01.02.2007. Following which the said order was not complied with, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, all retiral dues were eventually paid. However, interest on gratuity and leave encashment was paid only from January, 2017 and not from the due date. No interest was paid on LTC, ACP pay scale arrears, and commutation of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the affidavit dated 22.10.2019 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein details of retiral benefits and dates of payment have been furnished. The petitioner controverted the same by filing a rejoinder/counter affidavit dated 05.03.2020, stating that interest was paid only on gratuity and leave encashment.

3. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondents, it stands admitted that interest amounting to Rs.1,04,802/- was paid on gratuity and leave encashment w.e.f. 01.01.2017. He further refers to page 127 of the paper book and places reliance upon the sanction order for commutation of pension (Annexure P-22), submitting that the amount calculated therein was Rs.4,42,190/-, whereas the petitioner was paid only Rs.63,670/-. Reliance is also placed upon notification dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P-23) and Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil Services