240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29781-2024 Date of decision: 23.02.2026 SANT RAM ....Petitioner Versus PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION Ltd. AND ORS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kulbir Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hridyavans S. Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for the respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned letter/Memo No.140 SCE/D-3 dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondents, whereby recovery of Rs.2,52,974/- was ordered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner vide Annexures P-4 and P-5. A further prayer has been made for Mandamus directing the respondents to release the due gratuity amount of the petitioner forthwith along with interest @9% per anuum from the due date till the date of payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as an unskilled worker and was later on selected as a skilled worker by direct appointment on 18.02.1994. The petitioner retired on 31.07.2023, but his gratuity was withheld. An amount of Rs.2,52,947/- was also recovered from his retiral dues; however the said amount has since been released during the pendency of the present petition. The aforesaid amount was withheld and recovered on the pretext that an increment had been wrongly granted to the petitioner in the year 1994, to which the petitioner was not entitled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, 2015(1) SCT 195 wherein recovery from retired employees after a long lapse of time was held to the impermissible. It is further contended that no disciplinary, criminal or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. There is no denial of the fact that the gratuity was withheld despite there being no such pending proceedings. Moreover the recovery was effected beyond a period of five years, as stipulated in Rafiq Masih case (supra).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the respondent-Department reviewed the matter and refunded the amount of Rs.2,52,947/- earlier recovered from the petitioner on 11.10.2025. Aforesaid amount has since been credited and transferred to the bank account of the petitioner in month 11/2025.

5. The respondent was obligated to release all retiral dues within two months of the retirement. As such, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by 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 beyond a period of two months qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. The Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra), speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, observed as under:-

2.“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 n