CWP-17693 IN THE 229 Gurnam Singh Punjab State 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 nature of communication dated 24.12.2018(P vide which the legal notice served by petitioner has been decided in terms of order passed in CWP quashing the order dated 13.12.2018 (P denied benefit of salary during his suspension period and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment along with consequential benefits . 2. petitioner retired from the services of respondent and at the time of retirement of the petitioner 1 17693-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Gurnam Singh VERSUS Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Abilaksh Gaind, Advocate (through V.C). **** 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 ommunication dated 24.12.2018(P-13) issued by respondent vide which the legal notice served by petitioner has been decided in terms of order passed in CWP-26539-2018 for release of retiral benefits and for quashing the order dated 13.12.2018 (P-10) vide which petitioner has been denied benefit of salary during his suspension period and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment of gratuity and leave ent along with consequential benefits . Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner retired from the services of respondent t the time of retirement of the petitioner HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17693-2021(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) and another .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. Mr. Abilaksh Gaind, Advocate for the 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, order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 13) issued by respondent-Corporation vide which the legal notice served by petitioner has been decided in terms of 2018 for release of retiral benefits and for 10) vide which petitioner has been denied benefit of salary during his suspension period and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment of gratuity and leave ent along with consequential benefits . for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from the services of respondent-Corporation on 31.10.2008 t the time of retirement of the petitioner FIR No.15 dated 01.03.2003 , 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, certiorari for quashing the Corporation vide which the legal notice served by petitioner has been decided in terms of 2018 for release of retiral benefits and for 10) vide which petitioner has been denied benefit of salary during his suspension period and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payment of gratuity and leave the Corporation on 31.10.2008 FIR No.15 dated 01.03.2003 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17693 under Sections 420, 406, 120 Act, P.S. Ghuman, district Gurdarpur was pending against him. However, he stands acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.1.2015. Thereafter, petitioner requested respondent however, his claim was kept pending. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed CWP- 15.10.2018. Thereafter, the retiral dues of t 13.03.2019 (Annexure P 3. acquittal, he dues in terms of the judgment Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 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 amoun 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 en disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper 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 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, 2 17693-2021 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Ghuman, district Gurdarpur was pending against him. However, he stands acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.1.2015. Thereafter, ioner requested respondent-Corporation for release his retiral dues, however, his claim was kept pending. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner -26539-2018 before this Court, which stands disposed of on 15.10.2018. Thereafter, the retiral dues of t 13.03.2019 (Annexure P-12). Learned counsel for petitioner f he is entitled to the interest on the delayed in terms of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 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 amoun 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 en disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper 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 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 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 B IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Ghuman, district Gurdarpur was pending against him. However, he stands acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.1.2015. Thereafter, Corporation for release his retiral dues, however, his claim was kept pending. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner 2018 before this Court, which stands disposed of on 15.10.2018. Thereafter, the retiral dues of the petitioner were paid on Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that upon his the delayed amount towards retiral rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 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 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 our view, be generally 12% unless the B IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Ghuman, district Gurdarpur was pending against him. However, he stands acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 16.1.2015. Thereafter, Corporation for release his retiral dues, however, his claim was kept pending. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner 2018 before this Court, which stands disposed of on e paid on upon his towards retiral S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 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 Justice 9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the sure 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 s 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, gets a right to be compensated 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 12% unless the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17693 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 by the Hon SCC 44 and 4. that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner but however, did not controvert upon the judgment relied by the petitioner 5. petitioner as well as respondent 6. this Court in direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on delayed amount towards the rate of 7.5% p.a in terms of the judgments (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. 7. disposed of. August 26, 2025 P.C 3 17693-2021 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 placed on the judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner but however, did not controvert upon the judgment relied by the petitioner I have heard the submission made by learne petitioner as well as respondent-Corporation with their able assistance In the view of the above decision rendered by urt in A.S. Randhawa, the present petition is direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on delayed amount towards retiral benefits to the petitioner the rate of 7.5% p.a in terms of the judgments within a period of three 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. : circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) placed on the judgments rendered S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 ate of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner but however, did not controvert upon the judgment relied by the petitioner. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the Corporation with their able assistance. decision rendered by Full Bench of , the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.01.2015 at the rate of 7.5% p.a in terms of the judgments A.S. Randhawa and S.K. Dua within a period of three months from the date of receiving the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rendered S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the retiral dues have already been paid to the petitioner but however, d counsel for the l Bench of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on at S.K. Dua within a period of three months from the date of receiving the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document