IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-31477-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.10.2025 Jasbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rohit Tanwar, Advocate and Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No.3 and 4 to grant due interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. Further prayer has been made to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the Clerks/officials responsible especially respondent No.5, who intentionally and malafidely kept the petitioner’s files for release of retiral dues.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the only surviving grievance of the petitioner is with regard to his entitlement towards interest on account of delay in releasing the retiral dues in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343. He further submits that the petitioner retired as Sewadar from Municipal Council, Ludhiana, on 31.05.2024, after rendering 33 years of unblemished service. The retiral dues of the petitioner was not released upon his retirement and as such, he made several representations including a legal notice dated 25.09.2024, which remained unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP-30492-2024, which was disposed of by this Court on 12.11.2024 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice and release the benefits within a stipulated time. The respondents released the principal amount of the retiral dues to the petitioner only on 26.03.2025, after a delay of about ten months from the date of his retirement, however, no interest for the delayed period was paid causing the petitioner financial hardship.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 – State and Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 are not in a position to controvert the fact that there is a delay in releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner retired on 31.05.2024 and his retiral benefits were paid only on 26.03.2025. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner retired with unblemished service record and there was no pending departmental proceedings against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. The delayed has occurred in releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner due to administrative laxity.

6. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s cae (supra) 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 defa