IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

249 CWP-11684-2021 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 Ajaib Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State Of Punjab And Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Eklavya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

None for respondents No.4 and 5.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRA R , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any of them for the enforcement of legal right to grant service gratuity.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner served as a Daftri under respondent No. 2 and superannuated on 31.01.2016. The petitioner was granted all pensionary benefits and gratuity;

however, an amount of Rs. 91,610/- was withheld by respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that, on the eve of retirement, there was no pending charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings, and the petitioner retired with a clean record. As such, the withholding of the retiral dues is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The aforesaid amount was withheld as respondent No. 1 had communicated to respondent No. 2 not to release a certain amount, on the ground that the petitioner had stood surety for a loan granted by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 4 instituted a suit on 25.01.2017 under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, along with an application for ad interim injunction, before the competent Court at Chandigarh against respondents No. 2, 3, and 5, as well as the petitioner, seeking a decree for recovery of Rs. 99,369/- against the loan of Rs. 38,000/- along with future interest, and for restraining respondent No. 2 from releasing an amount equivalent to the aforesaid sum from the gratuity of the petitioner.

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced order dated 14.09.2024, which is taken on record as Mark “X”. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned State counsel. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

2.3 Referring to Mark “X”, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement made by the concerned official on instructions from her employer-

Department. As such, respondent No.4-Corporation is obligated to refund the amount withheld from the gratuity of the petitioner along with interest as the amount of gratuity was withheld without any authority of law. It is trite law that retiral benefits are not a matter of grace or bounty, but a statutory and vested right accruing to an employee upon superannuation. The issue is no longer res integra. The controversy stands squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein it has been unequivocally held that any delay in release of pensionary or retiral benefits beyond a reasonable period of two months from the date they become due would entail payment of interest to compensate the retiree for such delay.

3. The rationale underlying the grant of interest is that an employee, who has rendered long years of service, cannot be deprived of his legitimate dues without lawful justification.

4. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 is not in a position to controvert the fact that, on 14.09.2024, the suit filed by respondent No. 4 against respondent No. 2 was dismissed as withdrawn, and that, on the eve of retirement, there was no pending charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and pursued the records with their able assistance. It transpires that, on the date of retirement of petitioner, there was no chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings pending against him and the petitioner retired naturally upon his superannuation. Further, it is un