CWP-24491-2018 -1- 206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24491-2018 DECIDED ON: 07.07.2026 KANWALJIT SINGH GHUMAN .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. J.S.Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.TPS Walia, AAG Punjab SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari setting aside the speaking order dated 01.07.2015(Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent no.1, whereby the representation of the petitioner filed in pursuance of the order passed in 15.05.2015 in CM 10163-CII of 2015 in COCP 213 of 2013 (Annexure P-6) demanding arrears of pay was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed and further to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to make payment of the pending arrears to the petitioner along with interest on such delayed payments. 2. Factual matrix of the case unfolds that the petitioner had joined as Employment officer in the respondent department on 01.02.1991 and was to retire MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24491-2018 -2- on 31.08.2010 but was given an extension of one year and therefore he retired from the department as Deputy Director on 13.05.2011. The petitioner filed Civil revision no. 3557 of 2011 wherein time bound directions were issued to the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1984 after counting increments earned upto 01.02.1991 and to release the arrears of pay within four months along with interest at 18% per annum. A review petition was filed by the respondent-state against the above mentioned order which was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2012 and thereafter the respondent-state filed SLP (C) 12283/12284 of 2013 which was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2014. Due to non compliance of the order dated 22.12.2011 passed in CR 3557 of 2011, the petitioner filed a Contempt petition i.e. COCP No. 213 of 2013 which was adjourned sine die vide order dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P-2) and an application CM 7393-CII of 2014 was filed for revival of the contempt petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure P-4). In the light of revived contempt petition, the respondent-state filed an affidavit for payment of Rs.4,64,000/- and the petition was disposed of as infructuous but since the said amount was a delayed payment , the petitioner filed another revival application of COCP 213 of 2013 wherein the respondent-state vide order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P-6) was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within 6 weeks of its presentation and the petitioner filed a representation dated 23.05.2015 but the respondent rejected the same vide order dated 01.07.2015(Annexure P-8). Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that an application i.e CM- 21505-CII of 2015 for revival of the contempt petition was filed as the respondent had not complied with the order dated 22.12.2011 and after passing of the notice of motion in the application, the respondent-state refixed the salary of the MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24491-2018 -3- petitioner vide order dated 25.02.2016 but the respondent state refused to pay in full amount due to the petitioner but the abovementioned revival application was dismissed with liberty.(Annexure P-10). 4. It is further argued that the petitioner retired on 13.05.2011 and a total gratuity amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner but a partial gratuity amounting to Rs.5,07,400/- was paid on 06.06.2013 and the interest amounting to Rs.1,82,664/- on it is payable which has been rejected by the respondent-state inspite of the fact that the respondent had admittedly paid interest amounting to Rs.2,66,004/- on balance gratuity of Rs.4,92,600/- which was paid to the petitioner on 27.11.2014. 5. Per contra, the State counsel would argue that by virtue of this petition, the petitioner is trying to claim compound interest which is seldom permissible. It is further argued that during the continuance of the stay granted by the Apex Court, there was no requirement of paying Rs.12,95,806/- yet the petitioner was paid the amount on 28.02.2014 i.e. almost a month before the SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court therefore the payment made by the department cannot be said to be a delayed payment. 6. The State counsel vehemently argues that the department was well within its right to wait till the final decision of the SLP therefore the payment so made cannot be said to be a delayed payment added with the fact that the petitioner got retired on 13.05.2011 and his pension was sanctioned by the Accountant General on 22.01.2013 and during this period, the petitioner was paid provisional pension also. 7. Heard counsel for the parties at length. 8. The petitioner in the instant petition is hereby challenging the order dated 01.07.2015 passed by the respondent-state being arbitrary and illegal MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24491-2018 -4- wherein the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on various grounds, one of them being that the Apex Court had stayed the contempt of court proceedings vide order dated 15.03.2013 and thus there was no requirement to pay Rs. 12,95,806/- during the period the stay was in operation. The respondent-state paid this amount on 28.02.2014 to the petitioner wherein allegedly, this payment was a delayed payment and the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the said amount i.e. 2,33,245/-. 9. It is a settled principle of law that pension is not a bounty but a right accrued to the employee for the services delivered by him in a particular department. The ratio has been discussed by the Apex Court in “State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair 1985 AIR 356” wherein it has been held that “Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment .” 10. From perusal of the record, it has come to the notice of this court that the arrears to be paid to the petitioner to him on 06.06.2013 due to faulty preparation of the papers by the respondent meaning thereby, the delay in paying the pension to the petitioner is purely because of the callous attitude and malafide intention of the respondent for which the petitioner ought not to suffer as has been held by the Apex Court in “Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1212,”. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:- If the rules/instructions are followed strictly much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24491-2018 -5- harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. 11. The fact that the respondent-state did not release the pension benefits due to stay in the contempt proceeding which continued upto 24.03.2014 is a bad explanation in the eyes of law as it is a well settled proposition that a stay granted only in contempt proceedings merely suspends the coercive process against the alleged contemnor. It does not amount to a stay of the original writ judgment or of the directions contained therein. Unless the appellate court has specifically stayed the operative directions regarding release of pension, and unless the applicable pension rules authorize withholding, the employer has no authority in law to withhold pension.This ratio has been discussed in” State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013) 12 SCC 210” 12. This court is of the considered opinion that administrative delay is not a lawful ground to withhold pension or consequential benefits and the employee who has retired should not suffer because of the employer's failure to complete administrative formalities. 13. In view of the above discussions, this court while allowing the instant petition quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2015(Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent no.1 and directs the respondent-state that the interest @18% be released in favour of the petitioner against the delayed payment of Rs.12,95,806/- MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24491-2018 -6- within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy of this order and the said interest would be calculated from the date it became due i.e.13.05.2011 till the date it was actually released on 28.02.2014. 14. The instant petition stands allowed. 15. Ordered accordingly. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MEENU 2026.07.15 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document