CWP-20447 IN TH 208 Daya Nand S State of Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Const mandamus d benefits i.e. annum. Furth the petitioner years of regu Services (As 1 447-2017 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o and Sangwan VERSUS Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Raman B. Garg with Mr. M Parveen, Advocates for the petit Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, ***** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India seeking issuan mus directing the respondents to r s i.e. gratuity, commutation of pens . Further prayer has been made for d titioner 2nd ACP grade pay w.e.f. 01 f regular satisfactory service under th es (Assured Career Progression) Rule NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-20447-2017 Date of Decision: February 04, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Mayank Garg and Ms. Komal e petitioner. AG, Haryana. has been filed under Article 226/227 issuance of a writ in the nature of s to release unpaid/withheld retiral f pension with interest @ 18% per for directing the respondents to pay .e.f. 01.02.2007 on completion of 20 nder the provisions of Haryana Civil ) Rules, 2008 with all consequential 2026 itioner ondents 6/227 ure of retiral per to pay of 20 Civil ential PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 benefits inclu order dated 0 2. petitioner ret Secretary, M retirement, tw P-2 and P- proceedings petitioner to Nand versus order dated 0 to decide the aforesaid dir 1181-2016, t 04.08.2017 (A respondent N whereby both respondent N retiral dues, which the sa approach thi pendency of interest on gr 2 447-2017 s including arrears with interest @ 1 ated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18). Learned counsel for the petition ner retired from service on 30.06.20 ry, Municipal Council, Fatehabad (An ent, two charge-sheets dated 14.05.20 -3, respectively) were pending dings were not concluded within a re ner to approach this Court by filing rsus State of Haryana and anothe ated 09.09.2015 (Annexure P-16) wit de the claim of the petitioner by pass id directions were not complied wit , titled Daya Nand Sangwan ve 017 (Annexure P-19). During the pen dent No.1 passed a speaking order date y both the charge-sheets were droppe dent No.1 not only dropped the charge dues, including grant of second ACP the said order was not complied wit ch this Court again by filing the pre cy of the writ petition, all retiral dues t on gratuity and leave encashment wa t @ 18% per annum, in the wake of petitioner inter alia contends that the .06.2012 while holding the post of ad (Annexure P-1). At the time of his .05.2007 and 13.02.2008 (Annexures ding against him. The disciplinary in a reasonable time, compelling the filing CWP-18956-2015, titled Daya other, which was disposed of vide 6) with a direction to the respondents y passing a speaking order. Since the ed with, the petitioner filed COCP n versus Anil Kumar, decided on he pendency of the contempt petition, er dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18), ropped. While passing the said order, charges but also directed release of all d ACP w.e.f. 01.02.2007. Following ed with, compelling the petitioner to the present writ petition. During the l dues were eventually paid. However, ent was paid only from January, 2017 ake of at the ost of of his exures linary g the aya f vide dents ce the CP- ed on tition, 18), order, of all owing ner to g the ever, , 2017 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 and not from arrears, and refers to the wherein detai The petitione dated 05.03.2 encashment. 3. rejoinder file to Rs.1,04,8 01.01.2017. reliance upon P-22), submi whereas the upon notifica Punjab Civil employee is restored on c date of actual 4. submits that office memo 5(iii), to con 3 447-2017 t from the due date. No interest was , and commutation of pension. Lear to the affidavit dated 22.10.2019 file n details of retiral benefits and dates o ner controverted the same by fili 5.03.2020, stating that interest was p ment. Learned counsel further submit er filed by the respondents, it stands a .1,04,802/- was paid on gratuity 017. He further refers to page 127 e upon the sanction order for comm submitting that the amount calculat s the petitioner was paid only Rs.63 otification dated 10.05.2011 (Annexur Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, t ee is entitled to commute up to 40% d on completion of 15 years from the actual receipt of the commuted value, Per contra, learned State cou s that the petitioner is not entitled to in memorandum dated 05.05.2008 (Ann to contend that in cases where discip st was paid on LTC, ACP pay scale . Learned counsel for the petitioner 9 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, ates of payment have been furnished. by filing a rejoinder/counter affidavit was paid only on gratuity and leave submits that, as per the reply to the ands admitted that interest amounting tuity and leave encashment w.e.f. e 127 of the paper book and places commutation of pension (Annexure alculated therein was Rs.4,42,190/- Rs.63,670/-. Reliance is also placed nnexure P-23) and Rule 11.1(1) of the II, to contend that a government o 40% of his pension, which is to be m the date of retirement or from the value, whichever is later. te counsel opposes the prayer and ed to interest. Reliance is placed upon (Annexure R-1), particularly Clause disciplinary proceedings are dropped scale itioner and 2, ished. fidavit leave to the unting w.e.f. places exure -, laced of the nment to be m the r and upon lause opped PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 on account o retired, no in from the dat further subm such decisio interest may payment. Lea 09.01.2017 ( involved in a under Section 13(1)(d) of th Gurgaon, and the disciplina sympathetic v 5. disciplinary p The charge- steps were ta proceedings. disciplinary p can be attrib Court first by petitioner has 4 447-2017 ount of lack of evidence or on the , no interest is payable on retiral benef he date of the final decision in the submitted that if the delay exceeds ecision and the employee has comp t may be allowed only from the da nt. Learned State counsel further ref 017 (Annexure P-18) and submits ed in a criminal case bearing FIR No. Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 read with ) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac n, and was acquitted on 11.02.2014. ciplinary charges against the petition thetic view. In rebuttal, learned counsel fo inary proceedings and criminal procee -sheets were issued in the years 2 ere taken by the competent authorit dings. It is the legitimate expecta inary proceedings are concluded with attributed to the petitioner, who w irst by filing CWP-18956-2015 and th ner has already suffered prolonged litig n the ground that the employee has l benefits for a period of three months in the disciplinary proceedings. It is ceeds three months from the date of completed all requisite formalities, the date of decision till the date of er refers to the speaking order dated bmits that the petitioner was also R No. 36 dated 18.11.2005, registered with Section 120-B IPC and Section on Act, 1988, at Police Station SVB, .2014. In the backdrop of these facts, petitioner were dropped by taking a nsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings operate in distinct fields. years 2007 and 2008, yet no effective uthority to conclude the disciplinary xpectation of every employee that d within a reasonable time. No delay ho was compelled to approach this and thereafter COCP-1181-2016. The ed litigation, whereas the respondents e has onths . It is ate of lities, ate of dated also stered ection SVB, facts, ing a s that fields. ective linary that delay h this 6. The dents PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 are solely re than a decade 6. perused the retired on 30 pending agai take any ade reasonable d followed by said contemp 09.01.2017 (A Further, the computation counsel. Furt the following 5 447-2017 lely responsible for delaying the disc decade. I have heard the learned cou d the record with their able assistan on 30.06.2012 and at that point of g against him pertaining to years 200 y adequate steps to conclude the dis able dispatch compelling the petitio ed by COCP-1181-2016 and it was o ontempt petition, respondent No.1 p 017 (Annexure P-18), whereby both t r, the claim of the petitioner regardi tation of pension has not been cont l. Further in response to the query rais lowing order was passed:- “Both the parties have file Learned counsel for th commuted value of the pension w 2019 and an amount of Rs.63, Since the petitioner had retired 11.1 of Punjab Civil Service Ru which reads as under:- “(1) A Go superannuation/pre e disciplinary proceedings for more d counsel for the parties and have sistance. It transpires that petitioner int of time, two charge-sheets were rs 2007-08. The respondents did not the disciplinary proceedings within a petitioner to file CWP-18956-2015, was only during the pendency of the o.1 passed a speaking order dated both the charge-sheets were dropped. egarding interest on LTC, ACP and n controverted by the learned State ry raised by this Court on 20.03.2023, e filed their respective affidavits. r the petitioner submits that the ion was sanctioned only in October s.63,617/- was paid on 09.10.2019. tired on 30.06.2012, therefore, Rule e Rules, Volume-II was applicable, Government employee, on premature retirement, shall be more have tioner were id not thin a 2015, of the dated pped. P and State .2023, the ber, 019. Rule ble, on be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 7. Additional D behalf of res explanation a recovery of Civil Service to the promu 6 447-2017 entitled to commu fraction not exceed pension. The fracti retirement i.e. retirement shall, h completion of 15 ye or 15 years from th value, whichever is The respondent-Departme Haryana Civil Services (Pensi applicable to the case in hand only w.e.f 01.01.2016. Learned State counsel ma Rules of 2016 are made applica otherwise the petitioner was ent so commuted on retirement and completion of 15 years from the from the actual receipt of com later. The interest component is of commuted portion of the pens In compliance thereto, an a onal Director, Urban Local Bodies, H of respondents No.1 and 2, wherein on attached to Rule 15 of the Pen ry of Rs.3,78,517/-. It was clarified ervice (Pension) Rules, 2016 is prosp promulgation of the 2016 Rules, the P mute for a lump sum payment a ceeding 40% (forty percent) of his raction of pension so commuted on i.e. superannuation/pre-mature ll, however be restored to him on 15 years from the date of retirement m the actual receipt of commutation er is later.” rtment has relied upon Rule 106 of ension) Rules, 2016, which is not and as these rules came into force l may apprise this Court as to how licable to the case of the petitioner, s entitled for the fraction of pension and the same was to be restored on the date of retirement or 15 years commutation value, whichever is nt is also applicable on the recovery pension.” an affidavit of Sh. Y.S. Gupta, ies, Haryana, Panchkula was filed on herein reliance was placed upon the e Pension Rules, 2009 to justify the rified that Rule 106 of the Haryana prospective in nature, however, prior e Pension Rules of 2009 contained nt a f his d on ture on ent tion 6 of not orce how ner, sion d on ears r is very upta, led on n the fy the ryana , prior tained PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 a similar pr attached to R 8. notification (Revised Pen is no explana as mark 'X'. which was ta attached with 9. High Court the duty of th held as under "31) T the em the del by taki 33) ...e endeav initiate giving conclu for the arising made t the cau 7 447-2017 lar provision for recovery of exces d to Rule 15. Further, Learned counsel for ation dated 17.04.2019 vide which ed Pension) Part-II, Rules 2009 were n xplanation attached to Rule 15. Copy o k 'X'. He further provided copy of th was taken on record as mark 'Y' and d with the said notification was made The Hon'ble Supreme Court in urt of Delhi and another, (2015) 1 y of the employer to conclude discipli under: 1) Time and again, this Court has e e employer to ensure that the depart e delinquent employee is concluded w taking priority measures... ) ...every employer (whether State deavor to conclude the departmen itiated against the delinquent employ ving priority to such proceedings an ncluded within six months as an out r the employer to conclude due t ising in the proceedings within the ti ade to conclude within reasonably e e cause and the nature of inquiry but excess payment in the explanation el for the petitioner produced the which the Haryana Civil Services were notified and submitted that there Copy of the same was taken on record of the notification dated 04.10.2013 ' and submitted that the explanation made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. urt in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, 5) 16 SCC 415, while emphasizing isciplinary proceedings expeditiously, as emphasized that it is the duty of partmental inquiry initiated against ded within the shortest possible time tate or private) must make sincere tmental inquiry proceedings once ployee within a reasonable time by s and as far as possible it should be outer limit. Where it is not possible ue to certain unavoidable causes the time frame then efforts should be ly extended period depending upon y but not more than a year." nation d the rvices t there record .2013 nation trar, sizing ously, ty of inst time cere nce e by d be sible uses d be pon PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 10. charge-sheets conclude the was compelle contempt pro contempt pet The responde and unexplain for the admin action was k mandate of 11. retiral benef res integra. A 1998 (1) SCT 8 447-2017 In the present case, the petition sheets were issued in 2007 and 20 de the disciplinary proceedings for n mpelled to approach this Court twice pt proceedings in 2016. It was onl pt petition that the respondents dropp spondents have offered no explanation explained delay of 9-10 years. The pet administrative lapses of the responde was kept dangling over the petition te of Prem Nath Bali (supra) . The entitlement of a retired emp benefits and the consequential right to gra. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S 1) SCT 343, laid down the seminal prin "Since a government employe immediately entitled to pension the Pension Rules, a duty is sim ensure the disbursement of pen retirer in proper time. As to wha the facts and circumstances of e not exceed two months from the commits any default in the pe denying to the retiree the bene money, there is no gainsaying th petitioner retired on 30.06.2012. The and 2008. The respondents did not for nearly a decade. The petitioner twice, first in 2015 and thereafter in as only during the pendency of the dropped the charges on 09.01.2017. anation whatsoever for this inordinate he petitioner cannot be made to suffer spondents. The sword of disciplinary etitioner indefinitely, contrary to the d employee to timely disbursement of ght to interest upon delay is no longer in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, al principle: loyee on his retirement becomes sion and other benefits in terms of simultaneously cast on the State to f pension and other benefits to the what is proper time will depend on of each case but normally it would the date of retirement... If the State e performance of its duty thereby benefit of the immediate use of his ng the fact that he gets a right to be . The d not tioner fter in of the .2017. dinate suffer linary to the ent of longer unjab, mes s of te to the d on ould tate reby f his o be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 12. v. The Punja 2022, decide per annum fro 13. another, CW dealing with service and w sheets cannot was entitled t to pay interes 14. retiral benefit disciplinary p were made t were made respondents encashment f interest. How two months a 9 447-2017 compensated and, in our opinio him is to pay him interest for the as was due to him on the date of This principle has been consiste unjab State Power Corporation Lim decided on 11.11.2025, this Court dire um from two months after retirement This Court in Tara Chand Tus , CWP-12146-2016, decided on 22.0 with a case where charge-sheets and were subsequently dropped, hel cannot cause prejudice to the petitione titled to immediately upon retirement. interest for the period of delay. In the present case, the petitio benefits ought to have been disbursed inary proceedings were dropped only ade thereafter. Some payments, suc made as late as 09.10.2019, over dents have admitted to paying in ment from January 2017, thereby ack t. However, interest ought to have be nths after retirement, and on all retiral pinion, the only way to compensate r the period of delay on the amount te of his retirement." (emphasis supplied) onsistently followed. In Jagjit Singh n Limited and others, CWP-16745 rt directed payment of interest at 6% ement till actual realization. Tusamer v. State of Haryana and n 22.05.2019 (Annexure P-24) , while eets were issued on the last date of d, held that the pendency of charge titioner so as to withhold amounts he ement. The respondents were directed petitioner retired on 30.06.2012. His ursed by 31.08.2012 at the latest. The d only on 09.01.2017, and payments ts, such as commutation of pension, over 7 years after retirement. The ng interest on gratuity and leave by acknowledging the entitlement to ave been paid from the due date i.e. retiral benefits, not selectively. sate ount plied) ingh 745- at 6% and while ate of harge- nts he rected 2. His t. The nts nsion, . The leave ent to te i.e. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 15. memorandum months from cannot be in inaction in d maxim nullus take advanta instruction ca wrongful wit 16. commutation Services Rul reads: "(1) retirem fractio commu shall, h date of value, 17. of Rs.4,42,19 balance amou of 87 months 10 447-2017 The respondents' reliance on andum dated 05.05.2008 to deny inter s from the date of final decision is com be invoked by the respondents to n in delaying the disciplinary procee ullus commodum capere potest de i dvantage of his own wrong) square tion cannot override the fundamental ful withholding of legitimate dues. The petitioner retired on 30 tation of pension is governed by Ru es Rules, Volume-II (as applicable to 1) A Government employee, tirement, shall be entitled to comm ction not exceeding 40% of his pen mmuted on retirement i.e. superan all, however be restored to him on c te of retirement or 15 years from th lue, whichever is later." The respondents, instead of disb 4,42,190/- as sanctioned, paid only R e amount of Rs.3,78,573/- was recove onths, also including interest at about ce on Clause 5(iii) of the office y interest for the period prior to three is completely misplaced. This clause nts to take advantage of their own roceedings for nearly a decade. The de injuria sua propria (no one can squarely applies. An administrative mental principle of compensation for on 30.06.2012. His entitlement to by Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil able to the State of Haryana), which e, on superannuation/premature ommute for a lump sum payment a pension. The fraction of pension so erannuation/pre-mature retirement on completion of 15 years from the m the actual receipt of commutation of disbursing the full commuted value only Rs.63,617/- on 09.10.2019. The recovered on account of installments about 8.5%. This recovery is patently office three clause own . The e can trative on for to Civil which ture nt a n so ent the tion value . The ments tently PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 illegal and wi 18. reliance on Services (R 04.10.2013). (a.) affidav (Pensio retrosp force to retired His ri govern (b.) applica case is disburs cannot recove (c.) value amoun 19. 11 447-2017 and without authority of law. The respondents sought to jus e on the explanation attached to R es (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 013). This justification is unsustainab Firstly, the respondents have affidavit dated 22.10.2019 that Rule 10 (Pension) Rules, 2016 is prospective i retrospectively to the petitioner. The force to the 2013 notification amending retired on 30.06.2012, more than a ye His rights crystallized on the date governed by rules or notifications issue Secondly, the explanation at applicable, only permits recovery of a case is not one of recovery of excess disbursement of the base commuted cannot be permitted to dress up a ca very. Thirdly, the respondents have value and then effected recovery; th amount upfront. This is a colourable ex The Hon'ble Supreme Court in to justify this recovery by placing to Rule 15 of the Haryana Civil 2009 (as per notification dated tainable for multiple reasons: have themselves admitted in their ule 106 of the Haryana Civil Service ctive in nature and cannot be applied . The same logic applies with equal ending the 2009 Rules. The petitioner n a year prior to the said notification. date of retirement and cannot be s issued post-retirement. on attached to Rule 15, even if ry of additional amount. The present excess payment; it is a case of non muted value itself. The respondents p a case of non-payment as one of have not disbursed the commuted ery; they have simply withheld the able exercise of power. urt in Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. lacing Civil dated their ervice pplied equal tioner ation. ot be en if resent f non- dents ne of muted ld the U.P. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 Cooperative while consid employee cou "6. On was n discipl reduct absenc lapsed 20. to impose an retirement, es and no orde recovery of R 21. Corporation 22. consequent d commuted va The petitione through writ petition. He h 12 447-2017 tive Institutional Service Board, L considering whether disciplinary proc ee could be continued in absence of an . Once the appellant had retired fr s no authority vested with the r sciplinary proceeding even for t duction in the retrial benefits pay sence of such an authority it must psed and the appellant was entitled t Applying the above principle, th ose any recovery from the retiral b ent, especially when the disciplinary order of recovery was ever passe ry of Rs.3,78,573/- is without jurisdict The Hon'ble Supreme Court tion v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 SCC "11. ...For any fault on the employees cannot be made to su In the present case, the delay i uent delay in release of retiral ben ted value of pension are all attribut etitioner has been pursuing his legit h writ petition, then contempt petiti n. He has already suffered prolonged l rd, Lucknow, (2014) 7 SCC 260 y proceedings after retirement of an e of any rule to that effect, held: d from service on 31.3.2009, there he respondents for continuing the r the purpose of imposing any payable to the appellant. In the must be held that the enquiry had led to get full retrial benefits." (emphasis supplied) iple, the respondents had no authority tiral benefits of the petitioner post linary proceedings had been dropped passed against the petitioner. The risdiction and void ab initio. Court in Calcutta State Transport SCC Online SC 594, held: the part of the Corporation, the to suffer." elay in disciplinary proceedings, the al benefits, and the recovery from ttributable solely to the respondents. s legitimate claims since 2015, first petition, and now the present writ nged litigation and financial hardship. 260, of an here the any the had hority post- opped . The port the s, the from dents. , first t writ dship. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 He cannot b administrati 23. (i) procee violatio inordin attribu (ii) benefit commu i.e. 31 Randh (iii) memor cannot compe (iv) of pen respon interes (v) govern 13 447-2017 nnot be made to suffer further on strative lapses. In view of the foregoing discussi The respondents have fail proceedings against the petitioner violation of the mandate laid down in inordinate and unexplained delay o attributable to the respondents. The petitioner is entitled benefits, gratuity, leave encashmen commutation of pension, from two mo i.e. 31.08.2012 till the date of actu andhawa (supra). The respondents' reliance memorandum dated 05.05.2008 to den cannot be permitted to defeat the petit compensation for wrongful withholdin The recovery of Rs.3,78,5 of pension is patently illegal and w respondents are liable to refund the sai interest. The petitioner's entitlemen governed by Rule 11.1(1) of the er on account of the respondents' iscussion, this court observes that:- ve failed to conclude the disciplinary oner within a reasonable time, in wn in Prem Nath Bali (supra) . The elay of nearly a decade is solely titled to interest on all delayed retiral ashment, LTC, ACP arrears, and o months after the date of retirement f actual payment, in terms of A.S. eliance on Clause 5(iii) of the office to deny interest is misconceived and e petitioner's legitimate entitlement to holding of his dues. .3,78,573/- from the commuted value and without authority of law. The the said amount to the petitioner with itlement to commutation of pension is the Punjab Civil Services Rules, dents' linary e, in . The solely retiral , and ement A.S. office d and ent to value . The r with ion is Rules, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 Volum Rules/n applied 24. following dir 14 447-2017 Volume-II as applicable on the date of Rules/notifications issued post-retire applied retrospectively to his detriment Accordingly, the present writ ing directions: (i) The respondents are delayed payment of gratuity, lea arrears at the rate of 6% per months after retirement) till the d period of three months from the of this order. The amount Rs.1,04,802/- shall be adjust computed. (ii) The respondents recovered amount of Rs.3,78,57 interest at the rate of 6% per an payment of Rs.63,617/-) till the period of three months from the of this order. (iii) The respondents a commuted value of pension str 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil S date of his retirement i.e. 30.06.2012. retirement (2013/2016) cannot be riment. t writ petition is allowed with the nts are directed to pay interest on the ity, leave encashment, LTC, and ACP per annum from 31.08.2012 (two ill the date of actual payment, within a m the date of receipt of certified copy ount of interest already paid i.e. adjusted against the total interest dents are directed to refund the ,78,573/- to the petitioner along with per annum from 09.10.2019 (date of till the date of actual refund, within a m the date of receipt of certified copy ents are directed to recalculate the ion strictly in accordance with Rule ivil Services Rules, Volume-II (as .2012. ot be th the on the ACP (two ithin a copy d i.e. terest d the ith ate of thin a copy te the Rule II (as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20447 25. disposed of. February 0 P.C 15 447-2017 applicable to the State of Harya of the petitioner i.e. 30.06.20 amount, if any, to the petitioner 6% per annum from 31.08.2012 within a period of three month certified copy of this order. (iv) In case of defau stipulated period, the interest p 9% per annum for the period of Pending miscellaneous applic ed of. ary 04, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : Haryana) as on the date of retirement 0.06.2012, and pay the differential tioner along with interest at the rate of 8.2012 till the date of actual payment, months from the date of receipt of default in compliance within the rest payable shall stand enhanced to iod of further delay. application(s), if any, also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ement rential rate of ment, ipt of n the ced to stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.16 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document