IN THE 236 Kamal Kishore State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the respondents to release the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement 2. that the retiral benefits of the petitioner h only dispute which survives in the present petition is with regard to the interest on the delayed payment. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be paid interest @ 6% per annum on account of delay in releasing the retiral benefits. 3. with the submission made by learned counsel representing the respondent 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Kamal Kishore VERSUS State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 5. Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of respondents to release the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 at the very outset submits that the retiral benefits of the petitioner have already been released and the only dispute which survives in the present petition is with regard to the interest on the delayed payment. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be paid interest @ 6% per annum on account of delay in the retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel representing the respondent HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8933-2021 Date of Decision: August 18, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 5. Advocate for respondent No.4. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per Learned counsel for respondent No.4 at the very outset submits ave already been released and the only dispute which survives in the present petition is with regard to the interest on the delayed payment. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be paid interest @ 6% per annum on account of delay in Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel representing the respondent , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per Learned counsel for respondent No.4 at the very outset submits ave already been released and the only dispute which survives in the present petition is with regard to the interest on the delayed payment. Further, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be paid interest @ 6% per annum on account of delay in Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is satisfied with the submission made by learned counsel representing the respondent PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.4 before this Court interest in terms of the judgment A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other b payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking N.K. Sodhi, the following was h “9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the reti time. circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement down by the Apex the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, circumstances of a parti rate which may extend to even 18%. rendered by the Hon (2008) 3 SCC 44 SCC 429. 4. respondent No.4, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the towards retiral benefits from the date of his retirement till the 2 before this Court and further submits that petitioner is entitled to the in terms of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this C A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other b payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking N.K. Sodhi, the following was held: 9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the reti time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's cas the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated in our opinion, the only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.” Reliance in this regard may also be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the retiral benefits from the date of his retirement till the submits that petitioner is entitled to the rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice 9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated y to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of in our view, be generally 12% unless the cular case warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments urt in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on delayed amoun retiral benefits from the date of his retirement till the date of release submits that petitioner is entitled to the urt in A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT enefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired Justice 9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the rer in proper As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two which time limit has been laid e (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated y to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of 12% unless the cular case warrant the payment of a higher placed on the judgments S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the amount date of release PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of his retiral benefits from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. 5. disposed of. August 18, 2025 P.C 3 of his retiral benefits at the rate of 6% p.a within a period of four months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : % p.a within a period of four months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No % p.a within a period of four months Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document