IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

219(3 cases) Date of decision:17.02.2026 1. CWP-17922-2020 Sant Ram .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

2. CWP-17931-2020 Ram Kirpal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

3. CWP-17927-2020 Balbir Singh .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocates for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Advocate for respondents No.2, 4 and 5.

Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel with Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for respondent No.6 in all cases.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-17922-2020.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India on the following prayers:-

“a) Praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned reply dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure P-10), whereby, the respondent Municipal-Council has illegally and arbitrarily denied the claim of petitioner qua the grant of pension on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to pension being the employee of PWSSB, whereas the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case highlights that the petitioner was employee of respondent Municipal Council, as he was absorbed by the respondent Municipal Council, before being transferred to PWSSB on the basis of deputation, from where the petitioner retired from the service.

b) Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant/release pension and retiral/pensionary service benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, CPF and other dues and arrears etc) along with 18% interest to the petitioner till its realization. Further it is prayed that in case this Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner is employee of PWSSB, then in alternative directions may be given to the respondents to grant the entitled CPF amount along with interest @ 18% per annum for the delay in payment till its realization.”

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, at the very outset, submits that the entire retiral dues payable to the petitioners already stand disbursed. It is contended that the particulars of such payments have been duly delineated in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.6. The delay occasioned in the release of retiral benefits has been sought to be justified on account of acute financial constraints and paucity of funds. He further submits that respondents No.2, 4 and 6 have already liquidated their respective shares of all admissible retiral dues payable to the petitioners and, therefore, nothing substantive survives for adjudication in the present writ petitions.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the retiral dues have eventually been released, the same were disbursed in a piecemeal manner, commencing from 10.04.2020, with the final instalment having been released only on 13.09.2021. It is, thus, contended that there has been an inordinate, unexplained and wholly unjustified delay in the settlement of retiral benefits, which, per se, entitles the petitioners to the grant of 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. Learned counsel further submits, upon instructions, that the petitioners would rest satisfied in the event appropriate directions are issued to the respondents for release of interest on account of delayed payment. However, she fairly does not controvert the factual position that the principal retiral dues now stand fully paid.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parti