240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.12.2025 Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner Versus PSPCL through its Chairman and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate and Ms. Hargun Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

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 certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.05.2024 (Annexure P-9) vide which the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefit has been rejected. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest on the retiral benefits @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as Lineman on 04.10.1985. He earned promotions from time to time and retired on 13.05.2021. On the eve of retirement of the petitioner, there was no pending departmental or judicial proceedings against him. The respondents without any justifiable cause have withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner. The GPF was paid on 31.05.2022, leave encashment was paid on 28.09.2022 and the gratuity was released in three installments and last installment was released on 18.06.2024 to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing of CWP No.9637 of 2024 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 as discernible from Annexure P-8.

3. In purported compliance, the impugned speaking order was passed and the petitioner’s claim for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits has been rejected.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that delay has occurred due to the audit objection and an increment that had been wrongly paid earlier. Due to this, some amount was initially recovered from the petitioner’s gratuity, though it has now been released. However, he could not dispute that the petitioner was not at fault for the delay in releasing the retiral dues.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner retired on 31.05.2021 and his retiral dues were released between the year 2022-2024, as such, he is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits 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

6. In view of the controversy involved in the present case, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on account of delay in releasing the retiral dues (to be calculated two months after the date of retirement) till the date of its actual realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in view of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S.

Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) (supra)

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

09.12.2025 Neha