CWP-29047 IN THE 242 Naval Kishore Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. the Constitution of India following prayers: 1 29047-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Naval Kishore VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ekompal Sagoo and Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for respondents-PSPCL. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ following prayers:- i) “Quash the order dated 07.10.2022(Annexure P by respondent No.4, whereby an amount of Rs.6,20,347/ recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner without any office order, personal hearing and an opportunity to the petitioner on account that the two increments which were given in September, 2001 on the promotion from Lineman to Junior Engineer, the same increments were wrongly given and thus, the recovery is being effected from the petitioner that too after retirement of the petitioner as petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) on 31.03.2022 and the recovery effected on 07.10.2022(P from the gratuity pay order. Thus, the benefit given to the petitioner way back in 2001 cannot be recovered now by way of recovery as the action of the respondent against the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Stateof Punjab V/s Rafiq Masish” reported as 2015(4) SCC HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29047-2022 Date of Decision: August 28, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS State Power Corporation Limited and others ..Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR for the petitioner. Ekompal Sagoo and Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari on the Quash the order dated 07.10.2022(Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4, whereby an amount of Rs.6,20,347/- has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner without any office order, personal hearing and an opportunity to the petitioner on hat the two increments which were given in September, 2001 on the promotion from Lineman to Junior Engineer, the same increments were wrongly given and thus, the recovery is being effected from the petitioner that too after retirement of the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer (AE) on 31.03.2022 and the recovery effected on 07.10.2022(P-6) from the gratuity pay order. Thus, the benefit given to the petitioner way back in 2001 cannot be recovered now by way of action of the respondent-Corporation is totally against the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Stateof Punjab V/s Rafiq Masish” reported as 2015(4) SCC , 2025 .....Petitioner ..Respondents Ekompal Sagoo and Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for of on the 6) passed has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner without any office order, personal hearing and an opportunity to the petitioner on hat the two increments which were given in September, 2001 on the promotion from Lineman to Junior Engineer, the same increments were wrongly given and thus, the recovery is being effected from the petitioner that too after retirement of the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Engineer 6) from the gratuity pay order. Thus, the benefit given to the petitioner way back in 2001 cannot be recovered now by way of Corporation is totally against the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Stateof Punjab V/s Rafiq Masish” reported as 2015(4) SCC PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 2. petitioner has been appointed petitioner further got proficiency step requisite service. The petitioner further got promoted as JE Electrical w.e.f. 30.08.2001 and ultimately on 31.03.2022, he retired as Assistant Engineer from the respondent respondent-Corporation recovered the amount of Rs.6,20,347/ petitioner on the ground that the benefit of promotional increment on becoming Junior Engineer given in the year 2001 has been given (Annexure P amount already released by the respondent 3. the petitioner is squarely covered by Court in the case of “ 334’ and ‘Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State o 611. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on recovered amount rendered by a Full Bench of this C 2 29047-2022 Page 334 and also in case of “Syed Abdul Qadir and ors Versus State of Bihar and others.” reported in 2009(1) SCT 611. ii) Further directing the respondent corporation to return/release the amount of gratuity of Rs.6,20,347/ petitioner, which has been wrongly recovered from the petitioner after retirement along with 18% rate of interes The same has been recovered after retirement which took place on 31.03.2022 as Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia petitioner has been appointed as Lineman in the Board on 04.03.198 petitioner further got proficiency step-up on 04.03.1995 on completion of requisite service. The petitioner further got promoted as JE Electrical w.e.f. 30.08.2001 and ultimately on 31.03.2022, he retired as Assistant Engineer from the respondent-Board. Further, at the time of payment of gratuity the Corporation recovered the amount of Rs.6,20,347/ petitioner on the ground that the benefit of promotional increment on becoming Junior Engineer given in the year 2001 has been given (Annexure P-6). Further, the he has not made any representation for the amount already released by the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the settled law of Court in the case of “State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of Bihar and others Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on recovered amount rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A. Page 334 and also in case of “Syed Abdul Qadir and ors Versus reported in 2009(1) SCT 611. Further directing the respondent corporation to return/release the amount of gratuity of Rs.6,20,347/- to the petitioner, which has been wrongly recovered from the petitioner after retirement along with 18% rate of interest to the petitioner. The same has been recovered after retirement which took place on 31.03.2022 as Assistant Engineer.” Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the as Lineman in the Board on 04.03.1987. The up on 04.03.1995 on completion of requisite service. The petitioner further got promoted as JE Electrical w.e.f. 30.08.2001 and ultimately on 31.03.2022, he retired as Assistant Engineer from ard. Further, at the time of payment of gratuity the Corporation recovered the amount of Rs.6,20,347/- from the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of promotional increment on becoming Junior Engineer given in the year 2001 has been given wrongly Further, the he has not made any representation for the Corporation to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme State of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC Page Syed Abdul Qadir Versus State of Bihar and others’ 2009(1) SCT Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the interest on recovered amount in terms of the judgment urt in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer Page 334 and also in case of “Syed Abdul Qadir and ors Versus Further directing the respondent corporation to to the petitioner, which has been wrongly recovered from the petitioner t to the petitioner. The same has been recovered after retirement which took place contends that the 7. The up on 04.03.1995 on completion of requisite service. The petitioner further got promoted as JE Electrical w.e.f. 30.08.2001 and ultimately on 31.03.2022, he retired as Assistant Engineer from ard. Further, at the time of payment of gratuity the from the petitioner on the ground that the benefit of promotional increment on becoming wrongly Further, the he has not made any representation for the Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of Hon’ble Supreme 2015(4) SCC Page ’ 2009(1) SCT Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in terms of the judgment . Randhawa Supg. Engineer PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 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 period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired 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. judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner recovery made from the petitioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner. 5. respondent and gone through the case file. 3 29047-2022 .) 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 period of two months, qua the 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 Learned counsel for the respondent did relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner recovery made from the petitioner without issuing any notice to the I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and gone through the case file. .) 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 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 Learned counsel for the respondent did not controvert upon the relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned recovery made from the petitioner without issuing any notice to the I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 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 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 not controvert upon the and the impugned recovery made from the petitioner without issuing any notice to the I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-29047 6. part of petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner has been made by the respondent recovery of excess amount that has already been paid to the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the judgment relied in case Rafiq Masih 7. present writ petition is (Annexure P of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih respondents/competent authority is further directed to pay the recovered amount along with interest @ 7.5% calculated from the date of the date of actual payment, Randhawa interest per annum 8. application(s), if any. August 28, 2025 P.C 4 29047-2022 It transpires that no misrepresentatio part of petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner has been made by the respondent-Corporation towards over payment and as such, recovery of excess amount that has already been paid to the petitioner is not inable in view of the judgment relied in case Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC Page 334. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure P-6) is set aside in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Punjab Versus Rafiq Masih 2015(4) SCC Page 334. respondents/competent authority is further directed to pay the recovered amount along with interest @ 7.5% calculated from the date of the date of actual payment, in terms of the judgment and S.K. Dua (supra) within a period of three months @ 7.5% interest per annum on receiving the certified copy of this order Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : It transpires that no misrepresentation or fraud is seen on the part of petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner has been Corporation towards over payment and as such, recovery of excess amount that has already been paid to the petitioner is not inable in view of the judgment relied in case State of Punjab Versus In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 6) is set aside in terms of the judgment passed in the case State 2015(4) SCC Page 334. The respondents/competent authority is further directed to pay the recovered amount along with interest @ 7.5% calculated from the date of recovery till in terms of the judgment passed in case of A.S within a period of three months @ 7.5% on receiving the certified copy of this order. so also the pending miscellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No n or fraud is seen on the part of petitioner and there is no allegation against the petitioner has been Corporation towards over payment and as such, recovery of excess amount that has already been paid to the petitioner is not State of Punjab Versus In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 State The respondents/competent authority is further directed to pay the recovered recovery till S. within a period of three months @ 7.5% so also the pending miscellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document