IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33687-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Harjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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 the respondents to release the interest @ 9% of the delayed payment of pensionary benefits and to consider the claim made by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-5).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2023 and at the time of retirement, there was no pending departmental proceedings against him, however, still his pensionary benefits were not released on due date, which prompted him to file the writ petition i.e. CWP-21106-2024, and this Court vide order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) directed the respondents to pass a speaking order. In purported compliance, the retiral dues of the petitioner were released only on 26.12.2024, however, no interest was paid to him on account of delay in releasing the retiral benefits. As such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of 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

3. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 does not dispute the date of retirement of the petitioner nor the delay in disbursal of the pensionary benefits. It is, however, submitted that the delay occurred due to administrative reasons without any malafide intention.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. A gainful reference can be made to 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 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)

6. Reliance in this regard may also be placed 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 (1985) 1 SCC 429

7. In view of the above discussions, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, to be calculated from two month