238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Mangat Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Ms. Pushpanjali Bisht, Advocate for Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents No.3 & 4 to pay interest @ 9% per annum accrued on account of delayed release of retiral benefits as quantified at Annexure P-15.

2. Since, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has considered the pleadings filed.

3. A short grievance raised by the petitioner in the present civil writ petition is with regard to non-payment of interest on the delayed release of retiral benefits. The petitioner was superannuated on 31.01.2022 and his retiral dues were not released on the due date. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing CWP No.12070 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2022 with directions to the respondents therein to pass a speaking order addressing the grievance of the petitioner. In compliance of the directions of this Court, a speaking order (Annexure P-14) was passed in view of the decision taken by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-13) to disburse the retiral benefits of the petitioner and four equated instalments of Rs.2 lakh each and one equated monthly instalments of Rs.48,677/-. Since the retiral benefits of the petitioner were released after an inordinate delay after his superannuation on 31.01.2022, the petitioner is entitled to interest in terms of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg.

Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343

4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.3 could not controvert the facts of the case and the date of retirement of the petitioner as well as the delay in releasing his retiral dues.

5. After perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the retiral benefits 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 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 pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12% unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added)

Reliance in this regard may also be paid on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (19