IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 CWP-246-2020 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 17, 2026 Ram Gopal ....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pushpanjali Bisht, Advocate for Mr. Daman Dhir, 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 certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) vide which the representation dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure P-8) has been wrongly rejected by respondent and claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity has been denied. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the interest amount to Rs.74,996/- @10% on delayed payment of Gratuity amount of Rs.4,40,058/- for the period 01.05.2016 to 22.05.2017 and Rs.1,91,619/- from the period from 01.05.2016 to 23.02.2018 which was wrongly and deliberately delayed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 29.04.2016. It is contended that prior to his retirement, the Managing Director passed an order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was held responsible for causing a pecuniary loss to the respondent-Corporation to the tune of Rs.3,83,238/- and consequently a recovery of Rs.1,91,619/-, i.e. 50% of the total assessed loss, was imposed upon him. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,91,619/- was withheld out of the gratuity payable to the petitioner, which amounted to Rs.6,31,677/-, and only a sum of Rs.4,40,058/- was released vide sanction order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure P-3). Feeling aggrieved by the said recovery, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Haryana on 09.05.2017 (Annexure P-5). The said appeal came to be allowed and, resultantly, the withheld amount of Rs.1,91,619/- was ordered to be released. In pursuance thereto, the respondents disbursed the recovered amount vide cheque dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.07.2018 seeking grant of interest on account of delayed release of gratuity, however, the same evoked no response. Constrained by such inaction, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-31830-2019, which stood disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation within a period of three months. In purported compliance, the respondents passed a speaking order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the 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 respondent submits that subsequent to the acceptance of the petitioner’s appeal by the Additional Chief Secretary on 29.12.2017, the withheld amount of Rs.1,91,619/- was released without any avoidable delay. However, he is unable to controvert the admitted factual position that there has been a considerable lapse of time in the actual disbursement of the retiral dues. He also does not dispute that the controversy involved in the present lis stands squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment rendered in A.S. Randhawa (supra).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the pleadings on record along with the original record produced with their able assistance. The admitted factual matrix that emerges for adjudication is that the Managing Direc