IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

215 Date of decision : 10.02.2026 Dr. Atma Singh Bhatti ..…Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Ms. Dheerja, Advocate for the petitioner as Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, D.A.G., Punjab.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was a member of the Punjab Veterinary Service Class-I and was posted as Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Medical Store, Jalandhar at the time of his retirement. He retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.04.1999 after rendering 33 years of service with unblemished record. However, the respondent-department had released the retiral benefits of the petitioner after a considerable delay ranging from 7 to 19 months without any fault of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the respondents-department for payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits but they refused to accede to the request. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 07.02.2001 (Annexure P-4) upon the respondents claiming interest @ 18% on the delayed payment of retiral benefits but the respondents did not respond to the said notice. The petitioner also served reminder dated 07.04.2001 (Annexure P-5) to the respondents but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Written statement by way of an affidavit of Dr. G.S. Chahal (PAHS-1), Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, has been filed, wherein it has been stated as under :-

“xx xx xx xx xx

2. The petitioner has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has concealed the material fact that he submitted; his pension papers only on 22.2.1999 two months prior to his date of retirement i.e. 30.4.1999. Petitioner has knowingly delayed his pension case when it was in his knowledge to process his pension papers much prior to his date of retirement. The pension papers were submitted timely by the office to the quarter concerned but due to some observation by the Accountant General, Punjab the case of the petitioner took some time for its finalization. So it cannot be said that case of the petitioner has been knowingly delayed by the respondents and it was the prima-facie duty of the petitioner to submit his paper in time. So there is no deliberate delay on the part of the respondent and the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on any retrial benefits.

xx xx xx xx xx”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a considerable delay in releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. She further submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner were released in the following manner :-

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, submits that the delay has occurred in releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was not on the part of the respondents as the petitioner himself submitted his pension papers only two months prior to his retirement. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant d