CWP-22429-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-22429-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Vijay Kumar Arora ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Parbeen Dharwal, Advocate and Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the statutory interest on the delayed release of retiral/pensionary benefits to the petitioner, which has been illegally withheld on account of pendency of post-retiral departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1). Further a writ of certiorari has been sought, for quashing the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereby the minor punishment of 'censure' has been imposed upon the petitioner in the post-retiral departmental inquiry. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired w.e.f. 10.07.2023 while serving MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-22429-2026 2 as Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Adbar, District Nuh. A post-retirement charge-sheet dated 30.09.2023/06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) was issued against the petitioner alleging procedural lapses in the preparation of a seniority list. The proceedings culminated in the imposition of a minor punishment of 'censure' vide order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-2). The retiral benefits were released in installments during the year 2026 without any justification for the delay and without payment of any interest. She further submits that Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 provides for payment of interest on delayed release of retiral benefits. The only exception under Rule 79(6) applies when disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of retirement. However, in the present case, the proceedings were initiated after retirement and resulted only in imposition of a minor penalty of 'censure'. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioner retired on 10.07.2023, whereas the charge-sheet was issued thereafter on 30.09.2023/06.10.2023, which ultimately resulted in the imposition of minor penalty of 'censure' on 25.11.2024. It is also not disputed that the petitioner's retiral dues were released only in the year 2026. However, he submits that the delay occurred due to the pendency of departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-22429-2026 3 5. A gainful reference can be made to the 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. 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 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 which time limit has been laid 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 of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, 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 to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be generally 12% unless the circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added) MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-22429-2026 4 6. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429. 7. In view of the above discussions, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the payment of interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner, to be calculated after the expiry of two months from the date of his retirement till its actual realization. The aforesaid payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.07.23 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.