IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 CWP-20492-2020 Date of Decision: August 28, 2025 Shashi Bala .....Petitioner VERSUS Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate for the respondents-

PSPCL (through v.c.).

H ARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P-2) whereby the provisional family pension of the petitioner has been wrongly calculated @ Rs.4008/-, as against the instructions dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner is entitled for pension @ Rs.16700/- pm and further directing the respondents to release regular family pension and after re-fixing the same be released to petitioner @ Rs.16700/- pm w.e.f. 2.12.2018 and disburse the arrears along with interest and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for granting the family pension accorded to the petitioner on account of the service of the late husband of the petitioner with the respondents and to release all the pending retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, solatium etc of the late husband of petitioner w.e.f. the date of death of later Sh. Varinder Kumar along with interest @ 18%

per annum .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 2.12.2018. The family pension has to be calculated in terms of Rule 6.17A Vol II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and also in terms of instructions issued by the State of Punjab dated 23.12.2011. Further the retiral dues were not released immediately after the death of husband of the petitioner. The respondent-Corporation after the expiry of almost 1 ½ years on 24.04.2020 fix the family pension w.e.f. 03.12.2018. The pension was not fixed in terms of the instructions dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-1). Further, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and during the pendency of the present petition on 13.03.2021 the family pension was revised vide Annexure R-3. As such, during the pendency of the present petition the recovery of Rs.56,033/- has been made.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC Page 334’ and ‘Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of Bihar and others’ 2009(1) SCT 611. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on recovered amount in terms of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, the following was held:

“9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pa