CWP-11292-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 CWP-11292-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Ravindra Kumar Khandelwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Akshat Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release and disburse all the retiral dues of the petitioner, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all other consequential retiral benefits, which have allegedly been withheld without any authority of law. A further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner or initiating or entertaining any false, frivolous or motivated proceedings or complaints with a view to defeating his legitimate claim. The petitioner has also prayed for grant MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 2 of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on 02.08.1991 in Mewat Model School, Nuh, and earned promotions from time to time during his unblemished service career before attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2025. It is contended that on the date of retirement of the petitioner, neither any departmental proceedings nor any judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner. 3. It is further argued that during the course of his service, the petitioner had exposed certain serious irregularities allegedly committed by one Kartar Singh, particularly with regard to his appointment on the basis of a bogus degree and incomplete qualification records. Aggrieved thereby, Kartar Singh allegedly initiated a series of false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner. Initially, a complaint was made before the Vigilance Bureau, which culminated into a report dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-19), wherein the petitioner stood exonerated. Thereafter, Kartar Singh approached this Court by way of filing CWP-36658-2025, which was disposed of on 25.03.2026 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and it was only clarified that the jurisdictional competent authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner under the applicable Rules. Subsequently, an application bearing CM-6783-CWP- 2026 was filed by said Kartar Singh in the instant writ petition, seeking MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 3 impleadment which was dismissed by this Court on 05.05.2026 with costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon Kartar Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that immediately before the retirement of the petitioner, another complaint on substantially identical allegations was preferred before the Lokayukta. It is contended that the said complaint is merely a reiteration of allegations which had already been examined by the Vigilance Bureau and found to be devoid of merit. In the absence of any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings on the date of retirement of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are legally bound to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-3493-1986, titled as L.R. Dhawan vs State of Haryana & others, to contend that mere pendency of complaints or preliminary inquiries cannot furnish a valid ground for withholding the retiral benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondents No.2 and 3 have sought time to justify the stand taken by them qua withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner by relying upon Rule 81 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 which is applicable to the cases of provisional pension. He has argued that the petitioner is not working in a pensionable establishment and therefore, these Rules have no application in the case of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc., and he is also entitled to interest in terms of the MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 4 judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has opposed the prayer made in the instant writ petition and supported the action of withholding the retiral benefits. Learned State counsel has produced written instructions along with a copy of Rule 81 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, which have been taken on record as Mark 'X' (Registry to tag the same at appropriate place). It is further submitted that a clarification has been sought from the Lokayukta regarding the complaint pending before it and, therefore, the respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable rules. 7. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 have reiterated the stand taken in the written instructions and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 9. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner solely on account of a complaint stated to be pending before the Lokayukta, particularly when it is not disputed that no MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 5 departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the date of his superannuation. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 81 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, which reads as follows:- 81. Provisional pension where proceedings are pending at the time of retirement.― (1) (a) In respect of a Government employee against whom departmental or judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement), Haryana shall authorize the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which shall have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government employee, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, upto the date of immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (b) The provisional pension shall be authorised by the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement), Haryana during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the concluding of departmental or judicial proceedings. Final orders are passed by the competent authority. (c) No gratuity and commuted value of pension shall be authorised to the Government employee until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Note. – This provision shall also be applicable where – MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 6 (i) the departmental proceedings under Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016 involving any financial loss to Government are pending at the time of retirement. (ii) any complaint against the Government employee pertaining to his dishonesty is pending in State Vigilance Bureau, Lok Ayukat or in any Government Investigation Agency at the time of retirement. (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) (a) shall be adjusted against final pensionary benefits sanctioned to such Government employee upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period. Note. – Where any complaint against a Government employee is pending in the office of Lokayukat Haryana shall be given pensionary benefits after consultation with the Lokayukat. 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it evident that it forms part of the statutory scheme regulating payment of provisional pension to Government employees governed by the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against an employee on the date of retirement. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is not governed by the pensionary regime contemplated under the said Rules, the reliance placed upon Rule 81 to justify the withholding of his retiral benefits is clearly misconceived and cannot be sustained. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 7 12. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 have not been able to dispute the specific assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that he retired from a non- pensionable establishment. It is also not in dispute that the allegations levelled against the petitioner had earlier been examined by the Vigilance Bureau. The record further reveals that, after conducting an inquiry, the Vigilance Bureau submitted its report dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-19), whereby the petitioner stood exonerated. The respondents have not been able to point out any material demonstrating that the said report has either been set-aside or rendered ineffective in accordance with law. The subsequent complaint stated to have been filed before the Lokayukta appears to arise substantially from the same set of allegations. Mere pendency of such a complaint, in the absence of any disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings pending on the date of retirement, cannot, by itself, constitute a valid legal basis to indefinitely withhold the retiral benefits earned by an employee during the course of his service. 13. This Court in L.R. Dhawan’s case (supra), has held that an employee cannot be deprived of his legitimate service benefits merely because certain allegations or preliminary inquiries are pending. The embargo upon release of service benefits operates only when disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution have been validly initiated in accordance with law. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as admittedly no charge-sheet MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 8 had been issued nor any judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the date he attained the age of superannuation. 14. Retiral benefits are not a matter of grace or bounty but constitute valuable statutory rights which accrue to an employee upon retirement. Such benefits cannot be withheld except under the authority of law and in strict conformity with the governing statutory provisions. In the absence of any statutory provision applicable to the petitioner authorizing the respondents to withhold gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund or other admissible retiral benefits, the continued withholding thereof is wholly arbitrary and legally unsustainable. 15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the respondents have failed to justify their action in withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner. The reliance placed upon Rule 81 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 is misplaced, whereas the admitted factual position that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement clearly entitles him to release of his retiral benefits in accordance with law. 16. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate, release and disburse all the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner, including gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and all other consequential retiral benefits, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if not released so far. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-11292-2026 9 17. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of the retiral dues, which shall be computed after expiry of two months from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 07.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.08 12:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.