-1- CWP-33107-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 Civil Writ Petition No.33107 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Sher Singh Yadav and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate and Mr. Dimple Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the salary of the petitioners being PGT teachers engaged in various schools after retirement under the Re-Engagement Scheme of respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. On 05.03.2026, co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire due salary has been paid to the petitioners. However, it is contended that the said payment has been made after an inordinate delay of about five years from the date the salary had become due, as is apparent from the details of salary due to the petitioners mentioned in para no.2 of the petition. No reason has been cited for not releasing the salary for such a prolonged period. It is only after filing of the instant petition and OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -2- CWP-33107-2025 pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court, that the salary has now been paid. Accordingly, the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioners on account of the delayed release of salary. 2. Learned State counsel seeks an adjournment to get instructions and to file a specific affidavit explaining reasons, if any, for the delay in releasing the salary. 3. Adjourned to 19.03.2026.” 3. In compliance therewith, an affidavit dated 15.06.2026 of Mr Rajeev Vats, Assistant Director (Academic), Secondary Education Department, Haryana, has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the Registry of this Court. The only reason assigned for the delay in payment of the petitioners’ outstanding salaries is the non-availability of budgetary funds and the time consumed in completing the requisite financial and administrative formalities. Consequently, the outstanding liability under the Scheme could not be discharged from the original budget head. However, respondent-Department issued letters to all the District Education Officers from time to time, seeking details of the budgetary requirements and the outstanding salaries. Thereafter, the demands received from the District Education Officers were scrutinised and verified. The actual financial liability under the Scheme up to the date of its closure was finalised, and the matter was submitted to the Finance Department. The Finance Department raised certain objections. Ultimately, on the advice of the Finance Department and after obtaining approval from the competent authority, the outstanding remuneration of the re-engaged teachers was processed from the available budget under Major Head 2202, Object Head 69—Contractual Services. The outstanding salaries of the petitioners were released on 24.02.2026. It has, therefore, been stated that the delay in releasing the petitioners’ salaries was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred on account of administrative and budgetary circumstances. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh -3- CWP-33107-2025 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are senior citizens, discharged their duties diligently and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. At no point in time they were informed that the budget for payment of remuneration in respect of the services rendered by them had not been sanctioned. It is further submitted that the action and conduct of the respondents are contrary to the constitutional mandate. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court finds that, admittedly, there has been an inordinate delay of approximately five years from the dates on which the salaries became due, as is discernible from paragraph 2 of the petition. The respondents sought to attribute the delay to administrative and budgetary constraints. Such administrative lethargy cannot justify the denial of interest to the petitioners. Furthermore, the outstanding salaries were released only pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. This Court had also observed in its order dated 05.03.2026 that the respondents were liable to pay interest on account of the delayed release of the petitioners’ salaries. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioners on the delayed payment of their salaries, to be calculated from the respective dates on which such salaries became due till the actual payment. 7. It is made clear that, while calculating the interest, any salary or remuneration paid to the petitioners during the interregnum shall be duly adjusted. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 13 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.14 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh