IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.05.2026 Ram Dass …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Ms. Shreya Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Mr. H.S. Jugait, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for quashing of order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure P-5), passed by Chief Engineer/Canals, Water Resources Department, Punjab (respondent No.2), wherethrough, the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits, was decined.

2. What emerges from perusal of the instant writ petition is that the petitioner retired from his services on 31.12.2017, after availing two years extension in service. He was paid leave encashment on 31.03.2018, and GPF was paid on 12.09.2018, whereas, death-cum-retirement gratuity was paid on 06.07.2018, and the amount accrued under the GIS was paid on 17.07.2018.

He submits that there is a considerable delay in paying the retiral benefits, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment.

3. Perusal of the impugned speaking order reflects that the respondent tried to justified the release of payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents/State that sanction for payment of amounts against each head was made on time.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.

5. The issue, as involved in the instant writ petition, is not with regard to the date, as to when the requisite sanction was accorded by the authorities concerned rather, the issue herein is, the date when the petitioner actually received the pensionary benefits. Admittedly, there is a considerable delay in paying the retiral benefits, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment.

6. Since the retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner, after a period of considerable delay, the petitioner is held entitled for the 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

7. Furthermore, similar issue has already been examined by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-602-2023, titled ‘Hira Lal Karakara versus State of Punjab and others’ decided on 09.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment 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 reas