-1- CWP-10614 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10614 of 2023 Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Mohan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Mohan, Advocate, and Ms. Saroj Kumari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to grant interest to the petitioner on account of delayed release of gratuity of Rs.5,50,869/-, which was payable on 28.02.2011, but was sanctioned vide office order dated 13.10.2014, and actually paid on 01.01.2015. 2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from service as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) upon attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011. However, on account of registration of FIR No.30 dated 19.02.2007 under Sections 323, 341, 368 IPC at Police Station Phase 8, Mohali, the gratuity amount of the petitioner was withheld. Subsequently, the cancellation report in the said FIR was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali, vide order dated 01.07.2014, and thereafter the gratuity amount of RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CWP-10614 of 2023 Rs.5,50,869/- was sanctioned on 13.10.2014, and ultimately paid to the petitioner on 01.01.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity amount as the said amount became due on 01.03.2011, however, the same has been paid on 01.01.2015 after a period of about four years. He further submits that the said amount was withheld by the respondents on account of pendency of FIR No.30 dated 19.02.2007, wherein cancellation report was filed on 12.07.2007 and the same was accepted by the competent Court on 01.07.2014, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. 4. Learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid FIR, the gratuity amount could not be released during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that upon acceptance of the cancellation report by the Court on 01.07.2014, the said amount was immediately sanctioned on 13.10.2014, and paid on 01.01.2015 and, therefore, there is no undue delay in releasing the said payment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011 as ASI, and only on account of registration of FIR No.30 dated 19.02.2007 against the petitioner, the amount of gratuity was withheld and the RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CWP-10614 of 2023 cancellation report having been accepted by the Court on 01.07.2014, the gratuity amount was sanctioned on 13.10.2014, and ultimately paid to the petitioner on 01.01.2015. 7. The mere pendency of FIR in the absence of framing of charges against the accused person, is no basis for withholding the retiral dues of an employee. Surprisingly, in the present case, the cancellation report was filed in the Court on 12.07.2007, which was accepted on 01.07.2014, meaning thereby on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. on 28.02.2011 the cancellation report had already been filed in the Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, there was neither any legal impediment nor any justification to withhold the gratuity amount of the petitioner. 8. This issue has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gobind Ram Verma and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2024(2) SLR 537, wherein it has been held as under: - “7. The question that arises for consideration and determination before this Court in the present cases is as to whether the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity of the petitioners solely on account of pendency of FIR no.9 dated 29.06.2004 in which no challan / report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been filed on the date when the petitioners had retired, was justified or not. 8. A similar question arose before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.02.2024 passed in CWP-28933-2022 titled as “Baljit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others” after taking into consideration the law laid down by the RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CWP-10614 of 2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported as 1991(3) SCT 317 had observed that the criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been initiated when challan is presented in the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are deemed to have been initiated after the charge memo is issued to the delinquent employee. It was also observed that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-3567-2006 titled as “Atam Bodh Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others” decided on 09.10.2006 had observed that mere pendency of an FIR without there being any challan presented in the said FIR on the date of the retirement of the employee, would not give any right to the department to withhold the pensionary benefits of the employee and the Court in Baljit Singh's case (supra) had after considering the entire matter, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner therein from the date the gratuity became due till its payment. The relevant portion of the said judgment in Baljit Singh's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “7. The only question which arises for determination before this Court in the present writ petition is whether the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity of the petitioner keeping in view the pendency of the FIR No.5 dated 12.07.2011 is justified or not? 8. For deciding the said issue, it is to be considered that on the date of the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.03.2012, whether any criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner so as to give the right to the respondents to withhold the payment of gratuity of the petitioner. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CWP-10614 of 2023 9. It is an admitted case of the parties that FIR No.5 dated 12.07.2011, was registered against the petitioner, which was pending at the time of his retirement but no challan was presented prior to the retirement of the petitioner. Perusal of order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, would show that cancellation report in the said FIR was filed originally on 11.09.2014, however, vide order dated 09.10.2014 the said cancellation report was declined and the case was sent back for further investigation. Subsequently, fresh cancellation report was submitted, which was again returned unaccepted vide order dated 09.03.2018 by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, with direction to conduct further probe. Again, the cancellation report was submitted wherein it was stated that contractor Sudhir Kumar had made payment for chlorine purchased by him from Una through cash and there was no bar to the making of said payment by cash and finally the third cancellation report was accepted by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 13.01.2021. That being so, on the date, when the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation, only FIR No.5 dated 12.07.2011 was pending which was being investigated. The question that can mere pendency of an FIR on the date of retirement gives right to the respondents to withhold the retiral benefits on the ground that the criminal proceedings are pending, is required to be decided in the present writ petition. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman 1991(3) SCT 317 decided the question of law as to when a proceedings are RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CWP-10614 of 2023 deemed to be pending against an employee in respect of the departmental inquiry as well as in respect of the criminal proceedings so as to give right to the department to withhold the benefits. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is only when a charge-sheet is served upon a delinquent employee during the departmental proceedings, the departmental inquiry is stated to be pending against an employee, which will give right to the respondents to take an action against the employee in accordance with law. Similarly, where a Challan/charge-sheet has been presented against a person in the criminal proceedings, the criminal proceedings are to be treated as pending against the said person so as to give jurisdiction to the employer to take action against an employee. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in K.V. Jankiraman's case (supra) is as under: "16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge memo/ charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CWP-10614 of 2023 agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/chargesheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many- cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it would not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CWP-10614 of 2023 "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) ................................................ (3) ................................................ (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before." 11. In the present case, it is admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that only FIR No.5 dated 12.07.2011 was pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, which was under investigation and three cancellation reports were filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Patiala, and finally third cancellation report was accepted on 30.01.2021. Therefore, it cannot be said that any criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement so as to give right to the respondent/State to withhold the gratuity of the petitioner. 12. This Court while deciding CWP No.3567 of 2006 decided on 09.10.2006, titled as Atam Bodh Sharma v. State of Haryana and Others, held that mere pendency of an FIR without there being any Challan presented in the said FIR on the date of the retirement, there is no jurisdiction with the department to withhold the pensionary benefits of an employee. xxx xxx xxx RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CWP-10614 of 2023 13. In the present case, only an FIR was pending against the petitioner and no challan had been presented against him upto the date of his retirement or even thereafter also, therefore, the claim of the petitioner will be squarely covered by the judgment in Atam Bodh Sharma's case (Supra). Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show any Rule or Regulation which gives the right to the respondent/State to withhold the retiral benefits merely upon the registration of an FIR. The right with the respondents is only to withhold the benefits in case of the pendency of the criminal proceedings and the criminal proceedings can only be deemed to be pending on the date when a Challan is presented against the accused. Hence, in the case of the petitioner withholding of his benefits by the respondents was beyond their jurisdiction. 14. Keeping in view the above, present petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to grant interest to the petitioner @ 6% per annum on his retiral benefits, from the date it became due till its actual payment was made. Likewise, interest @ 6% per annum be also granted to the petitioner from the due date of gratuity till its payment made on 03.11.2022. Said exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 9. Keeping in view the above, the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity amount of the petitioner is wholly unjustified. Retiral benefits are not in the nature of a bounty but constitute a valuable statutory right, and an employee cannot be deprived thereof, except in accordance with law. Therefore, present RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CWP-10614 of 2023 petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity to the petitioner from 01.05.2011 to 01.01.2015, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (NAMIT KUMAR) 09.07.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment