CWP-17141-2023 [243] Ravinder Pal Garg State of Punjab and Coram : Present: N.S. SHEKHAWAT [1] writ in the nature of (Annexure P petitioner and have refused to release the int delayed payments of retiral benefits. [2] had retired as Assistant Commissioner from Food Safety Department District Sangrur, Punjab [3] petitioner on 22.10.2020 by the Treasury Officer, Sangrur, whereas GPF amount was released on 25.02.2021. Learned counsel further submits that even the leave encashment amount of petitioner only on 29.12.2021. It is argued that the retiral benefits were unjustifiably withheld by the respondents without any valid justification. 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17141 Date of Decision : Ravinder Pal Garg versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. N.S. SHEKHAWAT Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. **** SHEKHAWAT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside Order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-8), whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner and have refused to release the int delayed payments of retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had retired as Assistant Commissioner from Food Safety Department District Sangrur, Punjab on 31.03.2020. It is contended that the GIS amount was released to the petitioner on 22.10.2020 by the Treasury Officer, Sangrur, whereas GPF amount was released on 25.02.2021. Learned counsel further submits that even the leave encashment amount of petitioner only on 29.12.2021. It is argued that the retiral benefits were unjustifiably withheld by the respondents without any valid justification. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17141-2023 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents SHEKHAWAT Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab. The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a for setting aside Order dated 05.04.2023 , whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner and have refused to release the interest @ 18% per annum on the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had retired as Assistant Commissioner from Food Safety Department contended that the GIS amount was released to the petitioner on 22.10.2020 by the Treasury Officer, Sangrur, whereas GPF amount was released on 25.02.2021. Learned counsel further submits that even the leave encashment amount of ₹5,58,896/- was disbursed to the petitioner only on 29.12.2021. It is argued that the retiral benefits were unjustifiably withheld by the respondents without any valid justification. 1 The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of a for setting aside Order dated 05.04.2023 , whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the erest @ 18% per annum on the Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had retired as Assistant Commissioner from Food Safety Department, contended that the GIS amount was released to the petitioner on 22.10.2020 by the Treasury Officer, Sangrur, whereas GPF amount was released on 25.02.2021. Learned counsel further submits that to the petitioner only on 29.12.2021. It is argued that the retiral benefits were RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.19 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17141-2023 [4] relied upon the judgments o Punjab and others’ Haryana’ 20.11.2013 rate on delayed payment of retiral dues. [5] submissions made by payments have been made to the petit competent authority and the payments could not be made due to procedural delays. He further contends that the delay official business and the delay in making the payments is liable to be i and the issue [6] the case. [7] had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03 amount of GIS was paid to him on 22.10.2020. It appears that there is not much delay in making the said payment and the petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest on the said amount. [8] 22.02.2021 i.e. almost after 11 months of his retirement, whereas the amount of leave Thus, the said amounts were allowed to the petitioner after unexplained delay and the petitioner is 2023 In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Punjab and others’, 1997 (3) SCT 468 (F.B.) Haryana’, 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355 20.11.2013, to contend that an employee is entitled to interest at a reason rate on delayed payment of retiral dues. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the payments have been made to the petitioner after getting approvals from the competent authority and the payments could not be made due to procedural delays. He further contends that the delay official business and the delay in making the payments is liable to be i issue deserves to be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of From the perusal of the record, it is apparent had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03 amount of GIS was paid to him on 22.10.2020. It appears that there is not much delay in making the said payment and the petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest on the said amount. However, the amount of GPF was paid to the pe 22.02.2021 i.e. almost after 11 months of his retirement, whereas the amount of leave encashment was granted to the Thus, the said amounts were allowed to the petitioner after unexplained delay and the petitioner is liable to be granted the interest on such delayed In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has f this Court in ‘A.S. Randhawa v. State of , 1997 (3) SCT 468 (F.B.), and ‘J.S. Cheema v. State of , 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355, CWP-15867-2001, decided on , to contend that an employee is entitled to interest at a reasonable ned State Counsel has opposed the petitioner on the ground that the oner after getting approvals from the competent authority and the payments could not be made due to procedural delays. He further contends that the delay in obtaining approvals is an official business and the delay in making the payments is liable to be ignored I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020 and the amount of GIS was paid to him on 22.10.2020. It appears that there is not much delay in making the said payment and the petitioner is not entitled to However, the amount of GPF was paid to the petitioner on 22.02.2021 i.e. almost after 11 months of his retirement, whereas the was granted to the petitioner on 02.04.2022. Thus, the said amounts were allowed to the petitioner after unexplained liable to be granted the interest on such delayed 2 In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has A.S. Randhawa v. State of J.S. Cheema v. State of 2001, decided on able ned State Counsel has opposed the petitioner on the ground that the oner after getting approvals from the competent authority and the payments could not be made due to procedural in obtaining approvals is an gnored I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of that the petitioner .2020 and the amount of GIS was paid to him on 22.10.2020. It appears that there is not much delay in making the said payment and the petitioner is not entitled to titioner on 22.02.2021 i.e. almost after 11 months of his retirement, whereas the on 02.04.2022. Thus, the said amounts were allowed to the petitioner after unexplained liable to be granted the interest on such delayed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.19 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17141-2023 payments. No.2 is directed to grant 6% interest on the delayed payment of GPF and leave encashment i.e. from the date of retirement till to the present petition [9] disposed off 16.09.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2023 payments. Consequently, the present petition is No.2 is directed to grant 6% interest on the delayed payment of GPF and leave encashment i.e. from the date of retirement till to the present petitioner. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. 16.09.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Consequently, the present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to grant 6% interest on the delayed payment of GPF and leave encashment i.e. from the date of retirement till the actual disbursem All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 and respondent No.2 is directed to grant 6% interest on the delayed payment of GPF and actual disbursement All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.09.19 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document