IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

208 Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 PRADEEP KUMAR BHAGAT ...Petitioner Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Harpal Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Jaivir S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel, for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the only challenge raised is that on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits to which petitioner has been found to be entitled to, the benefit of interest has not been granted by respondent No.4-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), while passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-4), non-grant of which benefit is contrary to the settled principle of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others 1997(3) S.C.T. 468, according to which judgment, in case there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against employee concerned at the time of retirement, the pensionary benefits are to be released within a period of two months of retirement, failing which the employee becomes entitled for the grant of interest on such delayed release of benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even as per the judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.15867 of 2011, titled as ‘J. S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana and others’, decided on 20.11.2013, the benefit of interest is to be given to the employee in case, amount due towards such an employee has been retained by the Department and used and therefore, the non-grant of benefit of interest by the Tribunal in the impugned order despite recording a finding that there was a delay at the hands of respondent-department in release of the pensionary benefits to petitioner, is incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that though there was no chargesheet filed against the petitioner at the time of his retirement but there was a vigilance investigation pending against him, due to which, the pensionary benefits admissible to petitioner were withheld, hence the claim of interest upon such delayed payment, is incorrect and the said prayer may kindly be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded that even in the vigilance investigation against the petitioner dropped later on.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that in case there is an impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits, then only the same can be withheld and that too, only where rules support the said withholding of the benefits. No such rule has been brought to the notice of this Court, which could show that in case vigilance investigation is pending against an employee, the retiral benefits admissible to such employee can be withheld, even though, no charge-sheet has been issued to such an employee even for the allegations alleged against such employee, which allegations were under investigation by the Vigilance Department.

6. Further, even otherwise, the vigilance investigation initiated against petitioner has been dropped as the allegations alleged against him could not be substantiated. That being so, once the allegations alleged have not been substantiated, the delay in release of benefits admissible to petitioner has to be attributable to the Department concerned and the employee needs to be compensated for such delay.

7. Further, as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra), in case there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee at the time of his/her retirement, the pensionary benefits are to be released within a period of two months. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is as under:

(9) Since a Government employee on hi