Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda
GURDEV SINGH – Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS – Respondent
Interest on delayed retiral benefits is payable from the date the delay becomes attributable to the employer, particularly after a court decree sets aside an erroneous retirement order, even if the initial delay was caused by the employee's misconduct.
Headnote:The appellant challenged the order of the Single Bench which directed that interest on delayed retiral benefits be paid from the date of the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) instead of the date of retirement. The Court observed that the initial delay in releasing pensionary benefits was attributable to the appellant due to the concealment of his original date of birth. However, after the Civil Court set aside the retrospective retirement order via a decree dated 01.02.2011, the department should have promptly conducted an enquiry and released the benefits. Therefore, the delay attributable to the respondents begins from the date of the decree. The appeal was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
##PAGE1##
LPA-77-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
139 LPA-77-2026 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 05.03.2026
GURDEV SINGH … Appellant
Versus
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY ... Respondents
BOARD AND OTHERS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for respondents.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
The appellant has impugned the judgment of the Single Bench dated
12.11.2025 to the extent that the interest be directed from the date of his retirement
instead of date of decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CJJD’) as has been directed by the Single Bench.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant was
deemed to have retired from service in the year 2007 but the retiral dues were
released to him only in the year 2020, therefore, he is entitled to interest on
account of the delay in the release of his retiral benefits thereafter from the date of
his retirement instead of date of decree passed by CJJD.
3. Heard.
4. The appellant is stated to have been appointed as ALM in Punjab State
Electricity Board on 01.12.1979. His date of birth as recorded in the service book
was 13.11.1955. However, it later came to the notice of the respondents that his
correct date of birth was 13.04.1944 and therefore, by order dated 20.12.2007, he
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.03.10 11.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
##PAGE2##LPA-77-2026 (O&M) 2
was directed to have superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.04.2002. He had
challenged this order by preferring a civil suit before CJJD, Mansa which was
decreed in his favour on 01.02.2011. The Court had held that in the absence of an
enquirt, the order retiring the appellant retrospectively was null and void and the
impugned order dated 20.12.2007 was cancelled. However, liberty was granted to
the Department to verify and correct the date of birth of the appellant in the service
records after conducting a due enquiry in accordance with law. In the meantime,
the appeal preferred by the Department against the judgment dated 01.02.2011 was
also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment dated
04.08.2017. Despite dismissal of the appeal, the retiral benefits which were due to
him were not released and he was constrained to approach this Court by preferring
a writ bearing CWP No.15270 of 2019. This writ petition was disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to decide his representation within three months.
Pursuant thereto, an order dated 13.09.2019 was passed, wherein it had surfaced
that the actual date of birth of the appellant was 13.04.1944 instead of 13.11.1955
and his date of retirement was accordingly altered to 30.04.2002 in the service
book. Later, by the order dated 05.02.2020, it was further directed that the
appellant would be paid pension only with effect from 21.12.2007 instead of
01.05.2002, on the ground that he had rendered excess service, though no recovery
was ordered. The appellant did not challenge the order to the extent of payment of
retiral dues w.e.f. 21.12.2007 and therefore, he was deemed to have retired from
that date.
5. The retiral dues were released to the appellant only in the year 2020
without the interest component which compelled him to file another writ petition
bearing CWP No.17152 of 2021. The Single Bench had disposed of the writ
petition by the order dated 21.04.2022 with a direction to the competent authority
KUMARI SAPNA
2026.03.10 11.22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
##PAGE3##LPA-77-2026 (O&M) 3
to decide a legal notice of the appellant within 8 weeks. The competent authority
by the order dated 30.05.2022 had denied him the interest on his pensionary
benefits.
6. Aggrieved thereagainst, the appellant filed CWP-19275-2022 seeking
quashing of the order dated 30.05.2022. The Single Bench has relied
