IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 CWP-681-2022 Date of Decision: February 19, 2026 Nahar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Lovedev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate for the respondent.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to release the interest @ 18% on account of release of payment of leave encashment after a delayed period of more than 16 years of his retirement/superannuation withhold by the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2005 on the post of Field Officer, whereas his retiral dues towards leave encashment etc. were paid only on 20.09.2021, as is discernible from Annexure P-4. During service, the petitioner faced two departmental proceedings i.e. charge-sheets dated 30.05.2000 and 18.07.2003, which stood concluded on 24.01.2003 and 21.10.2005 respectively. In the latter charge-sheet, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of reduction of five stages in his time scale of pay; however, the said punishment order was subsequently withdrawn on 20.12.2012. It is further submitted that the arbitration case was also decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.05.2015 and the same was never challenged by the respondent. Despite this, the leave encashment amount was released to the petitioner only on 20.09.2021. Learned counsel contends that such inordinate and unexplained delay in release of retiral dues, per se, entitles the petitioner to interest in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs.

State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay occurred on account of the departmental proceedings as well as the arbitration litigation pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the retiral benefits could not be finalized earlier. It is contended that no intentional or deliberate delay is attributable to the respondents and, the retiral dues having already been released, no further liability survives. However, he is unable to controvert the fact that the punishment order stood withdrawn on 20.12.2012 and the arbitration case was also decided in favour of the petitioner on

15.05.2015, yet the leave encashment amount was released to the petitioner only on 20.09.2021.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 30.09.2005 and the leave encashment dues were released only on 20.09.2021. The departmental proceedings stood concluded by 21.10.2005 and even the punishment imposed therein was withdrawn on 20.12.2012. The arbitration proceedings were also decided in favour of the petitioner on 15.05.2015 and the said award was never challenged. Thus, there remained no justifiable impediment for withholding the retiral dues thereafter. The delay in release of leave encashment is, therefore, held to be inordinate and unexplained.

5. The issue is no longer res integra. The claim of the petitioner is squarely governed by the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa (supra), wherein it has been unequivocally enunciated that pensionary and retiral benefits are not in the nature of a bounty, but constitute a vested and enforceable right accruing to an employee on superannuation. It has further been held that any culpable delay in the release of such dues beyond a reasonable period quantified therein as two months would entail a corresponding liability upon the employer to compensate the retiree by way of interest on the belated payments.

6. In the conspectus of the afo