105+241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Kailash Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate and Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

CM-10483-CWP-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the accompanying short reply by way of affidavit of Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Patti along with Annexure R-3/1.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and short reply by way of affidavit of Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Patti along with Annexure R-3/1 is taken on record.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest at the rate of 18 % per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment as the same has been released after a delay of almost one and a half year.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased husband of the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper with the respondent department in the year 1985 and was superannuated from service on 31.10.2022. At the time of retirement, only Rs.5 lakh was paid and on account of retiral benefits, nothing has been paid to the deceased husband of the petitioner. Thereafter, the deceased husband of the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing CWP No.10875 of 2023 for redressal of his grievance. This Court vide order dated 18.05.2023 disposed of the said petition and direction was issued to the respondent therein to take decision on the legal notice dated 22.04.2023 and pass a speaking order within a period of two months. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.9,87,514/- and Rs.5,00,000/- was released to the deceased husband of the petitioner on 30.05.2023, 15.12.2023 and 31.10.2023, respectively. However, while releasing the retiral dues, the respondent department has not paid any interest on account of delay. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by 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 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana’ (2008) 3 SCC 44. As per the litigation policy of Punjab, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been satisfied by respondents-Department and the petitioner had to approach this Court once again, as such, the petitioner is not only entitled to the interest but also to the cost.

3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondents could not controvert the facts of the case and the date of retirement of the deceased husband of the petitioner as well as the delay in releasing his retiral dues.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the retiral benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner were released after an undue delay. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) (supra), 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 a