IN THE 243 Sohanjeet Singh Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 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 order dated 28.09.2022(Annexure P amount of Rs.4,60,427/ petitioner. 2. petitioner retired from service as Additional Assistant Engineer on 31.03.2019. Thereafter recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner 28.09.2022 inadvertently promotion. petitioner on account of any misrepresentation, as 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Sohanjeet Singh VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Karan Kaushal, Advocate Advocate for the respondents. **** 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 order dated 28.09.2022(Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby amount of Rs.4,60,427/- has been illegally recovered from the gratuity of the Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner retired from service as Additional Assistant Engineer on 31.03.2019. Thereafter, on 28.09.2022, an recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) for the reason that an inadvertently granted to the petitioner in the year 2001 He further submits that the said petitioner on account of any misrepresentation, as HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28310-2022 Date of Decision: August 18, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. , Advocate with Mr.Abhimanyu Jangra, 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 8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby recovered from the gratuity of the for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner retired from service as Additional Assistant Engineer on , an amount of Rs.4,60,427/- was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner vide impugned order dated he reason that an increment was granted to the petitioner in the year 2001 on account of his said benefit was not acquired by the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation, as such; the same cannot be , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents with Mr.Abhimanyu Jangra, 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, for quashing the 8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby recovered from the gratuity of the contends that petitioner retired from service as Additional Assistant Engineer on was vide impugned order dated was on account of his was not acquired by the be PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document recovered from the retiral benefit of gratuity awarded to him representation promotional benefit. rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2015(4) SCC 334 2009(1) SCT 611 3. petitioner is entitled to the interest recovery has delayed the receipt of retiral benefit of gratuity. Reliance in this regard is placed on the A.J. Randhawa Supg. 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 entit 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 R 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 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 interest, it should, circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%. 2 recovered from the retiral benefit of gratuity awarded to him representation was made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to any promotional benefit. Reliance in this regard is placed rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Punjab 2015(4) SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir 2009(1) SCT 611 to support his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner is entitled to the interest on recovered amount recovery has delayed the receipt of retiral benefit of gratuity. Reliance in this regard is placed on 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 benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entit 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 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 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 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%.” recovered from the retiral benefit of gratuity awarded to him. Admittedly, no made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to any Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the on recovered amount as the illegal recovery has delayed the receipt of retiral benefit of gratuity. Reliance in this rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in 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 ules, 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 circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) . Admittedly, no made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to any on the judgments Rafiq Masih State of Bihar and others the as the illegal recovery has delayed the receipt of retiral benefit of gratuity. Reliance in this urt in 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 le the retired Justice 9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the ules, 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 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 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 to what should be the rate of 12% unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hon’ble Su and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. 4. controvert the draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet issued against the petitioner and submits that he was held guilty of misconduct. 5. record with their able a 6. lieu of an inadvertently granted benefit, given that the said benefit was not acquired by engaging in misrepresentation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment ren Mashi (supra) Union of India vs 2023, decided on 24.04.2024 7. C/S No.252 issued on 29.09.2020 were concluded on 20.04.2021 (Annexure R-5), and a letter of censure was issued to the petitioner as punishment. However, the same does not act as benefits, in its entirety, disbursement of the complete retiral benefits caused by conduct of the respondent entitles the petitioner to interest in terms of Randhawa 8. 3 A reference is also made to upreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 ate of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent controvert the law laid down in the aforement draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet issued against the petitioner and submits that he was held guilty of misconduct. I have heard the learned counsel for the record with their able assistance. It is no longer res integra that a recovery cannot be made in lieu of an inadvertently granted benefit, given that the said benefit was not acquired by engaging in misrepresentation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mashi (supra) as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Ex-SI/GD Bachittar Singh decided on 24.04.2024. Admittedly, the proceedings arising out of charge sheet bearing C/S No.252 issued on 29.09.2020 were concluded on 20.04.2021 (Annexure 5), and a letter of censure was issued to the petitioner as punishment. the same does not act as an embargo , in its entirety, to the petitioner disbursement of the complete retiral benefits caused by conduct of the respondent entitles the petitioner to interest in terms of (supra). Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the judgments rendered by the S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 ate of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. earned counsel for the respondent could not law laid down in the aforementioned judgments. However, he draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet issued against the petitioner and submits that he was held guilty of misconduct. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the that a recovery cannot be made in lieu of an inadvertently granted benefit, given that the said benefit was not acquired by engaging in misrepresentation. Reliance in this regard can be dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SI/GD Bachittar Singh passed in LPA No.706 of Admittedly, the proceedings arising out of charge sheet bearing C/S No.252 issued on 29.09.2020 were concluded on 20.04.2021 (Annexure 5), and a letter of censure was issued to the petitioner as punishment. an embargo on release of the retiral the petitioner. Moreover, the delay in disbursement of the complete retiral benefits caused by the illegal act and conduct of the respondent entitles the petitioner to interest in terms of A.J. the present petition is allowed and the impugned rendered by the S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 not . However, he draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet issued against the parties and perused the that a recovery cannot be made in lieu of an inadvertently granted benefit, given that the said benefit was not acquired by engaging in misrepresentation. Reliance in this regard can be Rafiq as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.706 of Admittedly, the proceedings arising out of charge sheet bearing C/S No.252 issued on 29.09.2020 were concluded on 20.04.2021 (Annexure 5), and a letter of censure was issued to the petitioner as punishment. retiral in the illegal act and A.J. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P Rs.4,60,427/ directed to refund the rate of 6 % interest per annum of receiving of the certified copy of this order. 9. disposed of. August 18, 2025 P.C 4 order dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) for recovery of amount Rs.4,60,427/- is set aside. Further, the respondent directed to refund the recovered amount with an interest on the same at the 6 % interest per annum within a period of three months from the date of receiving of the certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : 8) for recovery of amount of the respondents/competent authority is amount with an interest on the same at the within a period of three months from the date of receiving of the certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of is amount with an interest on the same at the within a period of three months from the date Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands RPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document