CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Manjit Singh State of Punjab & others Sr. No. Particulars 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4. Whether only operative part of the or full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: Present: . NAMIT KUMAR, J. 1. Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum from date till the date of actual payment of arrears of pay and allowances amounting to Rs.24,19,680/ 2. appointed as Constable on 29.11.2015 under Section 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, was registered against the petitioner and Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh. (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manjit Singh Versus State of Punjab & others Particulars The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum from date till the date of actual payment of arrears of pay and allowances amounting to Rs.24,19,680/- for the period from The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 24.12.2011. However, FIR No.201 dated 29.11.2015 under Section 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, was registered against the petitioner and Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh. Upon registration of criminal case, the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents Details 20.08.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.09.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 02.09.2026 judgment is pronounced Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, N.A. NAMIT KUMAR Advocate, for the petitioner. AAG, Punjab. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment of arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was 24.12.2011. However, FIR No.201 dated 29.11.2015 under Section 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, was registered against the petitioner and Senior Constable Upon registration of criminal case, the petitioner and The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under mandamus for the due date till the date of actual payment of arrears of pay and allowances The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was 24.12.2011. However, FIR No.201 dated 29.11.2015 under Section 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, was registered against the petitioner and Senior Constable and VIMAL KUMAR 2026.09.02 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were dismissed from service invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India vide order dated petitioner against the dismissal order dated 02.12.2015 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, vide order dated 26.02.2016. filing CWP-14987 appellate order petitioner as well as Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were acquitted of the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 10.10.2019 petitioner i.e. CWP accused, namely, Senior Constable Sukhwinder 2017, were disposed of portion of the said order reads petitioner has been acquitted and also examine as to whether Article fresh order petitioner is dec from the date of passing of order. The Competent Authority is (O&M) (2) Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were dismissed from service invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India vide order dated 02.12.2015. The departmental appeal petitioner against the dismissal order dated 02.12.2015 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, vide 26.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by 14987-2017, challenging the order of dismissal as well as the order. However, during the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner as well as Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were acquitted of the charges leveled against them by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 10.10.2019. Subsequently, the writ petition filed by the i.e. CWP-14987-2017 as well as the writ petition filed by his co accused, namely, Senior Constable Sukhwinder disposed of by a common order dated 12.03.2020. of the said order reads thus: “The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to reconsider and pass a fresh order in view of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted and also examine as to whether Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India could be invoked in the present case. It is also directed that the Competen fresh order dehors the earlier order of punishment dated 02.12.2015 and orders in the appeal and revision dated 26.02.2015 and 21.09.2016, respectively. It is further directed that in case on re petitioner is decided to be taken back in job, the consequential orders and consequential benefits be released within two months from the date of passing of order. The Competent Authority is Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 02.12.2015 was also rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, vide the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the order of dismissal as well as the . However, during the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner as well as Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were acquitted of d Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, Subsequently, the writ petition filed by the 2017 as well as the writ petition filed by his co- accused, namely, Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh i.e. CWP-14213- order dated 12.03.2020. The relevant The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Jalandhar, to reconsider and pass a fresh order in view of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted and also examine as to whether Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India could be invoked in the present It is also directed that the Competent Authority shall pass a the earlier order of punishment dated 02.12.2015 and orders in the appeal and revision dated 26.02.2015 and It is further directed that in case on re-consideration, the ided to be taken back in job, the consequential orders and consequential benefits be released within two months from the date of passing of order. The Competent Authority is by , preferred by the by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, vide the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the order of dismissal as well as the . However, during the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner as well as Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were acquitted of , Subsequently, the writ petition filed by the - - relevant The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction Jalandhar, to reconsider and pass a fresh order in view of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted and also examine as to whether Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India could be invoked in the present t Authority shall pass a the earlier order of punishment dated 02.12.2015 and orders in the appeal and revision dated 26.02.2015 and consideration, the ided to be taken back in job, the consequential orders and consequential benefits be released within two months from the date of passing of order. The Competent Authority is VIMAL KUMAR 2026.09.02 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) 3. authority considered the case of the petitioner and reinstated consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P Pursuant thereto, allowances for the period from Rs.24,19,680/ Rs.20,54,357 interest was paid on the said amount of arrears notice dated 01.01.2021 upon the responden claim was rejected by respondent No (Annexure P- 4. petitioner had been reinstated with all consequential benefits and the respondents had themselves determined allowances payable to him, the petitioner during which the amount remained unpaid. learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in others Vs. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Soil Conservation Department, Chandigarh & others, 1989 (2) RSJ 242 and 782. 5. not entitled to interest on the arrears of pay and allowances, particularly when the respondents have already complied with the directions issued by (O&M) (3) directed to take a decision within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, authority considered the case of the petitioner and reinstated consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was found entitled to allowances for the period from 02.12.2015 24,19,680/-. However, after making deductions a net amount of Rs.20,54,357/- was credited to the bank account of the petitioner. interest was paid on the said amount of arrears notice dated 01.01.2021 upon the respondent rejected by respondent No.3, vide letter dated 01.02.2021 -3/T). Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been reinstated with all consequential benefits and the respondents had themselves determined and released allowances payable to him, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period during which the amount remained unpaid. learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in others Vs. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Soil Conservation Department, Chandigarh & others, 1989 (2) and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (1) SCT Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the arrears of pay and allowances, particularly when the respondents have already complied with the directions issued by directed to take a decision within three months from the date of ied copy of this order.” In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the competent authority considered the case of the petitioner and reinstated him with all consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1/T). the petitioner was found entitled to arrears of pay and 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020 amounting to However, after making deductions a net amount of was credited to the bank account of the petitioner. Since no interest was paid on the said amount of arrears, the petitioner served a legal ts claiming interest, but the said .3, vide letter dated 01.02.2021 Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had been reinstated with all consequential benefits and the and released the arrears of pay and entitled to interest for the period during which the amount remained unpaid. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Jarnail Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Soil Conservation Department, Chandigarh & others, 1989 (2) J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (1) SCT Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the arrears of pay and allowances, particularly when the respondents have already complied with the directions issued by directed to take a decision within three months from the date of competent with all 1/T). arrears of pay and amounting to However, after making deductions a net amount of no he petitioner served a legal but the said .3, vide letter dated 01.02.2021 once the petitioner had been reinstated with all consequential benefits and the the arrears of pay and entitled to interest for the period In support of his submissions, Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Soil Conservation Department, Chandigarh & others, 1989 (2) J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (1) SCT Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the arrears of pay and allowances, particularly when the respondents have already complied with the directions issued by VIMAL KUMAR 2026.09.02 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) this Court and have released all consequen submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional withholding of the amount on the part of the respondents. 6. the record. 7. passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated consequential benefits the respondents themselves determined payable to the petitioner which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of arrears. 8. on 02.12.2015 by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said action was subsequently reconsidered by the competent authority in view of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. Upon such reconsideration, the petitioner wa consequential benefits. The respondents, therefore, accepted that the petitioner was entitled to the monetary benefits attached to the intervening period. Once the petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits, denial of interest merely on the ground that the principal amount had subsequently been paid would not 9. of an amount which was legitimately due and payabl interest is an appropriate mode of compensating him for such deprivation. Interest compensates the person who has been kept out of the use of his (O&M) (4) this Court and have released all consequen submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional withholding of the amount on the part of the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P the respondents themselves determined and released to the petitioner amounting to Rs.24,19,680/ which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of arrears. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from ser on 02.12.2015 by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said action was subsequently reconsidered by the competent authority in view of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. Upon such reconsideration, the petitioner was reinstated consequential benefits. The respondents, therefore, accepted that the petitioner was entitled to the monetary benefits attached to the intervening Once the petitioner was held entitled to consequential benefits, denial of interest merely on the ground that the principal amount had subsequently been paid would not be justified. It is well settled that where an employee is deprived of the use of an amount which was legitimately due and payabl interest is an appropriate mode of compensating him for such deprivation. compensates the person who has been kept out of the use of his this Court and have released all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional withholding of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused ant to the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service along with all vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1/T), and and released the amount of arrears Rs.24,19,680/-. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.12.2015 by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said action was subsequently reconsidered by the competent authority in view of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. Upon such s reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits. The respondents, therefore, accepted that the petitioner was entitled to the monetary benefits attached to the intervening Once the petitioner was held entitled to consequential monetary benefits, denial of interest merely on the ground that the principal amount be justified. It is well settled that where an employee is deprived of the use of an amount which was legitimately due and payable to him, the award of interest is an appropriate mode of compensating him for such deprivation. compensates the person who has been kept out of the use of his tial benefits. It is further submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional withholding of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused ant to the order dated 12.03.2020 with all and arrears . The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to vice on 02.12.2015 by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said action was subsequently reconsidered by the competent authority in view of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. Upon such with all consequential benefits. The respondents, therefore, accepted that the petitioner was entitled to the monetary benefits attached to the intervening monetary benefits, denial of interest merely on the ground that the principal amount It is well settled that where an employee is deprived of the use e to him, the award of interest is an appropriate mode of compensating him for such deprivation. compensates the person who has been kept out of the use of his VIMAL KUMAR 2026.09.02 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21394-2021 (O&M) money for a period during which he was otherwise entitled to it. Singh and J.S. Cheema State retains the money belonging to an employee without justification, the employee is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for the period of such retention. reproduced as under: person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.” 10. respondents are directed to pay interest @ arrears of pay and allowances of Rs.24,19,680/ 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020 11. amount of interest date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 02.09.2026 Vimal (O&M) (5) money for a period during which he was otherwise entitled to it. J.S. Cheema cases (supra), this Court observed that where the State retains the money belonging to an employee without justification, the employee is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for the period of such retention. The relevant paragraph in as under: - “The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged t petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.” In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% arrears of pay and allowances of Rs.24,19,680/ 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020. The respondents are directed to amount of interest to the petitioner within a period of date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: money for a period during which he was otherwise entitled to it. In Jarnail , this Court observed that where the State retains the money belonging to an employee without justification, the employee is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for the period of The relevant paragraph in J.S. Cheema case (supra) is “The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.” present petition is allowed. The 6% per annum on the amount of arrears of pay and allowances of Rs.24,19,680/-, for the period from The respondents are directed to calculate and release the to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Jarnail , this Court observed that where the State retains the money belonging to an employee without justification, the employee is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for the period of is “The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State o the present petition is allowed. The per annum on the amount of for the period from calculate and release the the VIMAL KUMAR 2026.09.02 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.