IN THE 224 Amarjit 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 of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.2 vide which claim of the petitioner has been illegally rejected regarding the family pension and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the family pension to the pet disability. 2. Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Sr. XEN, PSPCL, submits that the family pension along with arrears would be released to the petitioner within a period of three months and further submits that the respondent hypothetical along with arrears 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Amarjit Singh VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. G.P Vashisht and Mr. Shivam Vashisht petitioner. Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure 12) passed by respondent No.2 vide which claim of the petitioner has been illegally rejected regarding the family pension and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the family pension to the petitioner fully eligible being a disabled person having a 50% Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Sr. XEN, PSPCL, submits that the family pension along with arrears would be released to the petitioner within a period of three months and further submits that the respondent hypothetical objection and create any hurdle in releasing the family pension arrears to the petitioner. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34799-2019 Date of Decision: August 19, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR G.P Vashisht and Mr. Shivam Vashisht, Advocates for the , Advocate for the respondent. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure 12) passed by respondent No.2 vide which claim of the petitioner has been illegally rejected regarding the family pension and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the family itioner fully eligible being a disabled person having a 50% Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Sr. XEN, PSPCL, submits that the family pension along with arrears would be released to the petitioner within a period of three months and further submits that the respondent-Corporation will not put any hurdle in releasing the family pension , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondent for the 226/227 in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure 12) passed by respondent No.2 vide which claim of the petitioner has been illegally rejected regarding the family pension and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the family itioner fully eligible being a disabled person having a 50% on instructions from Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Sr. XEN, PSPCL, submits that the family pension along with arrears would be released to the petitioner within a period of three any hurdle in releasing the family pension PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. also entitled to the interest rendered by a Full Bench of this C (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a pe said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking “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 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 particular rate which may extend to even 18%. rendered by the Hon (2008) 3 SCC 44 SCC 429. 4. prayer for grant of interest on delayed payment the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner entitled to the interest on the ground of delay ered by a Full Bench of this Court in (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a pe said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking 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 in 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 (sup 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 c 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 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for grant of interest on delayed payment the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is on the ground of delay in terms of the judgment urt 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 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 case warrant the payment of a higher ”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments urt in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for grant of interest on delayed payment towards family pension to petitioner is in terms of the judgment A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer wherein it was opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be riod of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the 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 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 ra). 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 ompensate 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 case warrant the payment of a higher placed on the judgments S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In rebuttal learned counsel for the respondent opposed the to PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the interest on delayed payment towards family pension. 6. the respondent, the present petition is disposed of respondent(s)/competent authority to interest on delayed amount within a period of of this order. 7. the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriation application under Article 215 to initiate proceedings for contempt of this Court. 8. disposed of. August 19, 2025 P.C 3 However, in the facts and circumst is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the interest on delayed payment towards family pension. Therefore, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent, the present petition is disposed of respondent(s)/competent authority to grant family pension and interest on delayed amount towards family pension within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy s order. In case, the needful is not done within a period of three months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriation application under Article 215 to initiate proceedings for contempt of this Court. Pending miscellaneous applicatio disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the interest on delayed payment n view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the grant family pension and to pay the family pension at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of receiving the certified copy In case, the needful is not done within a period of three months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriation application under Article 215 to initiate proceedings for contempt of this Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the interest on delayed payment n view of the statement made by learned counsel for with a direction to the pay the % p.a from the date of receiving the certified copy In case, the needful is not done within a period of three months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriation application under n(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.19 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document