IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 Bahadur Jit …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate for Mr. Kashish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

****

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 issuance of a mandamus, upon the respondents, to pay interest to the petitioner on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Tracer in Public Works Department (PWD), Public Health Branch, on 30.11.1978. The petitioner served on various posts even after he was promoted. Finally, on attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired as Head Draftsman, Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Department, on 30.06.2017, including the period of two years of extension in service. Thereafter, the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, U.T. Chandigarh, issued commutation payment order on 17.07.2017, and subsequently, the GPF Branch had approved the disbursement of the GPF amount of Rs.21,81,226/-, to the petitioner. However, the same was released to the petitioner after a period of eight months, i.e. on 03.02.2018. Similarly, the leave encashment was ordered to be released vide order dated 02.08.2017, but the same was released on 26.12.2017.

3. So far as the payment of leave encashment is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not raising any dispute and confining his prayer only with regard to delayed payment of gratuity.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, by referring to the reply dated 15.11.2018, filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Pawan Kumar Goyal, Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Division No.3, Bathinda, Punjab, for and on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, submits that the delay, which has occurred in releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner was procedural only, and no explanation or any cogent reasons for the said delay, in releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner, has been mentioned in the reply (supra).

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions, as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has gone through the available record.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that there were no plausible reasons to retain the retiral benefits of the petitioner, for a period of approximately eight months, once the commutation payment order was issued on 17.07.2017, by the office of Accountant General, concerned.

7. 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

8. 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