IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:28.04.2026 Shakuntala Kherata (Deceased) through LRs …Petitioner(s)

Versus B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and others …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Karan Singh Sandhu, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner.

2. Learned senior counsel contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Lecturer on 01.08.1972 in B.P.S. College of Education which was an aided institution of the Government of Haryana. After establishment of the University in 2006, the College became its constituent and the petitioner’s services were also taken over by the University. She kept on working there and superannuated as Senior Lecturer with effect from 30.11.2007. The due retiral benefits of pension and leave encashment were released to her after an inordinate delay on 02.04.2013 and 27.03.2023, respectively.

2.1. The second grievance of the petitioner is that one year period of his service with effect from 01.08.1972 to 01.08.1973 has not been counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits on the ground that employer’s share of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) was not deducted from her salary. The respondents cannot refuse to count the said period of qualifying service in the light of law laid down by this Court in S.M. Acharya v. State of Haryana and another, 2008 (1) SCT 804.

2.2. The third grievance is with regard to salary for the study leave period. The petitioner was granted study leave from 05.10.1984 to 04.10.1987, and was paid salary also for this period. However, after about twenty-five years, the amount of salary was recovered from her retiral benefits in compliance of memo dated 20.04.2005, Annexure R-1/5, issued by third respondent, without giving any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, it is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. Further, the period of study leave has not been counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, which is also contrary to law as the period has been taken into account for grant of increments. The aforementioned claims need to be allowed in view of settled law.

3. Learned counsel for the University did not dispute the facts aforementioned regarding the date of release of the benefits. He, however, submitted that the petitioner on her own started contributing towards CPF with effect from 01.08.1973, and failed to deposit the employer’s share of CPF along with interest in the pension corpus of the University. This is the reason her service period from 01.08.1972 to 01.08.1973 has not been counted as qualifying service for pension. He further submits that the benefit of leave encashment was not admissible to the University employees initially, and it was granted for the first time vide memo dated 08.12.2016, Annexure R-2, issued by the Department of Higher Education. Only thereafter the petitioner’s case for grant of benefit of leave encashment was processed, which got delayed on account of Covid-19 pandemic. In these circumstances, the benefit could finally be released vide letter dated 27.03.2023, Annexure R-4.

Accordingly, this delay is not intentional.

3.1. Regarding the alleged delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the reason was the petitioner’s failure to submit ‘No Dues Certificate’ (NDC) to the University, and in its absence the pensionary benefits could not have been released to her. The petitioner was granted study leave for doing Ph.D. which was never completed by her despite availing the leave with full salary. In these circumstances, Direct