IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

228 CWP-7933-2023(O&M)

Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 Roshan Lal Mehla ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Dr. Rishi Pal, Advocate for Mr. Gourav Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Girdhar, AAG Haryana.

Ms. Akshita Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

CM-6639-CWP-2023 Allowed, as prayed for.

Main

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the claim of petitioner is rejected which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. Further directing the respondents to grant interest on the retiral benefits @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement i.e.

31.07.2014 and till the date of realization i.e. 06.04.2018 and 08.09.2020.

2. On 25.05.2023, the following order was passed by this Court:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment has been declined by means of a totally non speaking order. The amount under leave encashment and gratuity was due on 31.07.2014 and the same was paid only on

06.04.2018 and 08.09.2020 respectively.

The petitioner has already been given details of . interest component by way of a representation dated 17.01.2023 but still the impugned order has been passed on 20.02.2023 without adverting to the gist given by the petitioner in his representation.

Notice of motion returnable on 08.11.2023.”

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a penalty of 14% cut in pensionary benefits/retiral dues was imposed by the Chief Administrator vide order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-2). However, the said punishment order was subsequently set aside by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide appellate order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-5). It is, thus, contended that since the retiral dues remained withheld on account of pending disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any interest on delayed release thereof.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was merely alleged to have recommended a case of allotment and no substantive misconduct causing any financial loss to the department was ever established against him. It is further contended that once the punishment order itself stood set aside in appeal, the respondents cannot justify withholding of retiral dues for such an inordinately long period and are consequently liable to compensate the petitioner by payment of interest on delayed release of retiral benefits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even otherwise no justification survives for withholding retiral dues once the punishment order itself stood annulled by the appellate authority. It is argued that retiral benefits are not a matter of bounty but constitute a vested right of a retired employee and any unexplained delay in disbursement thereof entitles the retiree to grant of reasonable interest. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1)

SCT 343

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance. It transpires from the record that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2014. Though explanation from the petitioner had been sought as far back as on 11.12.2012, the Inquiry Officer came to be appointed only on 20.10.2014 and the disciplinary proceedings ultimately culminated in passing of punishment order dated 10.01.