IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.05.2026 Avtar Singh Kahlon ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a Mandamus upon the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at this stage, confines his claim of interest only qua the delayed payment of gratuity. He submits that the petitioner retired on 30.09.2020, and the amount of gratuity was paid on 01.06.2022, i.e. after about the delay of one year and nine months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the claim of the petitioner, submits that, in fact, the petitioner submitted his pension papers only a month before the date of his superannuation, which is the root cause of the delay in releasing the gratuity. Thereafter, some interdepartmental communications were exchanged to process the claim of the petitioner, after removing the objections, and thus, no delay can be attributed to the respondents in disbursement of the amount of gratuity.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that apparently, there exists delay in releasing the amount of gratuity. Further, the respondent-State has not been able to justify, as to how, the petitioner is responsible for causing any delay in the process of disbursement of gratuity which was to be released in his favour only. So much so, any delay caused on account of exchange of some communications between the departments, in any case, attributes to the respondents only, as the petitioner had no role to play in such a process.

5. Since the gratuity has been released after a considerable delay, the petitioner is held entitled to interest, by virtue of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa versus State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 468, and a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema versus State of Haryana, 2014(13) R.C.R. (Civil)

355

6. Furthermore, a similar issue has already been examined by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-602-2023 (Hira Lal Karakara versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 09.05.2024. The relevant observations are extracted hereinafter :-

“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.10.2022 and since the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released after a considerable delay, therefore, he is entitled for interest on the same in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana : 2014(13)

RCR (Civil) 355

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while referring to the averments made in the reply, submits that since the whole amount of retiral dues has already been paid to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous.

xxx xxx xxx

7. Since either before or after the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him, therefore, his retiral benefits were required to be released within a reasonable time after his retirement. Moreover, a perusal of reply filed by the respondent No.2 shows that although the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released, however, the same have been released after a considerable delay and no explanation has been furnished for not releasing the same at the time of retirement or within a reasonable time thereafter.

8. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa