IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

253 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 TARSEM KUMAR GUPTA ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR ****

Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to pay interest on the delayed release of retiral dues to the petitioner @ 9% per annum and further to release Ex- gratia payment for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 amounting to Rs.40,000/- per year (total Rs.80,000/-), along with interest thereupon, which remained due and unpaid to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner, after serving respondent No.2, retired from service on 31.01.2013 (Annexure P-1), vide endorsement No. EA-III-2013/12897-900 dated

31.01.2013. However, after the retirement of the petitioner, a charge-sheet dated 31.01.2013 was issued vide endorsement No.12901 and thereafter a second charge-sheet was issued on 30.12.2013.

3. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of retirement of the petitioner, no charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. It is further contended that there exists no statutory rule applicable to the service conditions of the petitioner which permits initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. Learned counsel vehemently submits that the reliance placed by the respondent-Corporation upon Rule 2.2(b) of CSR, Volume-II is wholly misplaced inasmuch as the respondent-Corporation is not a pensionable establishment and the aforesaid Rule only provides for recovery from pension in disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments rendered in CWP No.15247 of 2011 titled S.C. Jain vs. Managing Director, Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another, Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2003) 6 SCC 545 and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd vs. Rabindranath Choubey, 2013 (6) CTC 342. It is further submitted that the details of delayed payments received by the petitioner have been specifically mentioned at page 15 of the paper-book and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of delayed release of retiral benefits.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner had caused financial loss to the respondent-

Corporation and therefore, two charge-sheets were issued against him. However, learned counsel could not controvert the fact that both the charge- sheets were issued after the petitioner had already retired from service and that the retiral benefits/gratuity were released in the years 2017, 2021 and

2023 respectively.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It transpires that the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2013, whereas the retiral benefits were released in a staggered manner. The details of the delayed payments, as reflected in para 15 of the writ petition, are reproduced hereinbelow:-

‘15. That till date the petitioner has not received interest on his delayed payments and his Ex-gratia payment for year 2010-11 and 2011-12 amounting to Rs. 40,000/- per year (Total Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest) which was due and not paid to the petitioner. The interest is being calculated below:

8. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2013 and no charge- sheet was pending against him on the date of retirement. The charge-sheets sought to be relied upon by the respondent-Corporation were issued only after the re