IN THE 107+294 Kewal Lal State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR CM-11326- under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record the short reply on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Short reply is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. CWP-24481 1. of the Cons order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2022(Annexure P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: VERSUS State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) -CWP-2025 Present application has been filed by respondents No.4 and 5 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record the short reply on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. Heard. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Short reply is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. 24481-2024 The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriat order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2022(Annexure P HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24481-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab-State. Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. Present application has been filed by respondents No.4 and 5 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record the short reply on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. cts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Short reply is taken on record. Registry to do the needful. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 titution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.03.2022(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.5 , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents for Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate Present application has been filed by respondents No.4 and 5 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on cts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Short reply is The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 writ, order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 4) passed by respondent No.5 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.13 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document in violation of mandate of law Civil Services Rules and further for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits from the date the petitioner retired i.e. 11.07.2011. 2. submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has been substantially redressed and amount of all retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. 3. petitioner is also entitled to the interest a Full Bench of this C State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 of pension and other benef 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 “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 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 particula rate which may extend to even 18%. 2 in violation of mandate of law prescribed under Civil Services Rules and further for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits from the date the petitioner retired i.e. 11.07.2011. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 at the outset submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has been substantially redressed and amount of all retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits petitioner is also entitled to the interest in terms of the judgment a Full Bench of this Court in A.J. 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. through Justice 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 retirer 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 (s 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 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 prescribed under Section 6.16-A(3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules and further for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits from the counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 at the outset submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has been substantially redressed and amount of all retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that in terms of the judgment rendered by A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. wherein it was opined that disbursement its 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. Justice 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 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 in our view, be generally 12% unless the r case warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments A(3) of Punjab Civil Services Rules and further for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits from the counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 at the outset submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner has been substantially that rendered by A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. wherein it was opined that disbursement its 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. 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 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 upra). 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 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 r case warrant the payment of a higher on the judgments PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.13 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rendered by the Hon (2008) 3 SCC 44 SCC 429. 4. that in case the petitioner moves on his retiral benefits, within a period of six weeks. 5. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a representation before the respondents retiral benefits. In the event of the petitioner moving such a representation, the respondent shall decide the same within a period of date of receiving a certified copy of this order after affording thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents at the retirement. August 12, 2025 P.C 3 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 Learned counsel representing the r that in case the petitioner moves a representation on his retiral benefits, the same will be decided in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a representation before the respondents seeking payment of interest on delaye retiral benefits. In the event of the petitioner moving such a representation, the respondent shall decide the same within a period of date of receiving a certified copy of this order fter affording him an opportunity to be heard. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondents at the rate of 7.5% p.a. commencing from the date of his retirement. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : urt in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 Learned counsel representing the respondents assures the Cour a representation seeking payment of interest be decided in accordance with law present petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a representation before the seeking payment of interest on delayed disbursement of his retiral benefits. In the event of the petitioner moving such a representation, the respondent shall decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order, an opportunity to be heard. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by rate of 7.5% p.a. commencing from the date of his (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 assures the Court payment of interest be decided in accordance with law present petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to move a representation before the d disbursement of his retiral benefits. In the event of the petitioner moving such a representation, from the by passing a speaking order, an opportunity to be heard. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by rate of 7.5% p.a. commencing from the date of his (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.13 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document