1 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) 126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: AUGUST 07, 2026 GURU JAMBESHWAR UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLONGY HISAR AND ANOTHER ........Appellant Versus VANITA AHLAWAT AND ANOTHER ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by Guru Jambeshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar and another (for brevity, “the University”), assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar,(hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”) whereby Civil Appeal No.CA-8 of 2024 preferred by the University was partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) was modified. The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff and held her entitled to the entire post-death retiral benefits of her deceased husband along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till the date of its actual realization. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court modified the said decree to the extent that the University was held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,27,31,495/- for the period from 15.03.2023 to 19.02.2026. It is against the said judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court that the University has preferred the present appeal. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) 2. The parties herein are being referred to as per their status in the Civil suit. 3. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs was instituted by the plaintiff-Vanita Ahlawat in respect of the death-cum-retiral benefits payable on account of the death of her husband, Ashok Ahlawat, who was serving as Superintending Engineer with Guru Jambeshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar (GJU) and died in harness on 03.05.2018. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to the benefits payable under the applicable Haryana Civil Services Pension Rules, 2016 and the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. The plaintiff pleaded that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and that two children were born out of their wedlock. Respondent no. 2/ Defendant no.3 -Smt. Bhagwani Devi is the mother of the deceased. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Ashok Ahlawat, FIR No.427 dated 04.05.2018 under Section 306 IPC was registered against her at the instance of defendant No.3 but the police, after investigation, submitted a cancellation report. However, the defendants stated that they were not aware whether the said cancellation report had been accepted by the competent Court, as no intimation in that regard had been received by the University from the Court, police or either of the parties. 4. A dispute thereafter arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 regarding release of the death-cum-retiral benefits. The University pleaded that, as per the service record of the deceased, his parents, namely Om Parkash Ahlawat and Bhagwani Devi, were reflected as nominees. Both the plaintiff and the parents of the deceased approached the University claiming the benefits and, in view of the rival claims, the University, after obtaining legal opinion, required the parties to obtain a succession certificate before release of the benefits. The TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) plaintiff, on the other hand, asserted that her entitlement flowed from the applicable service rules and that there was no requirement for her to obtain a succession certificate. She also claimed interest on the benefits on account of the period for which the same remained withheld. The plaintiff approached the University on several occasions seeking release of the benefits and, upon no favourable action being taken, served a legal notice dated 02.04.2019, followed by institution of the present suit. Defendant No.3, in her separate written statement and counter-claim, disputed the plaintiff's exclusive entitlement and claimed the post-death benefits for herself and the grandchildren of the deceased. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 04.02.2021: (i) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for; (ii) whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties; (iii) whether the suit was not maintainable; (iv) whether the counter-claimant and her grandchildren were entitled to the post-death benefits and monthly financial assistance of deceased Ashok Ahlawat; and (v) relief. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 regarding entitlement to the principal benefits was amicably resolved. Defendant No.3 withdrew her counter-claim and the principal benefits were agreed to be released in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the controversy regarding entitlement to and release of the principal amount stood settled between the parties. 7. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2023, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to all the benefits arising out of the death of Ashok Ahlawat, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) benefits became due till actual realization. The counter-claim was already dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Aggrieved, the University preferred appeal, principally assailing the award of interest. Vide judgment and decree dated 13.07.2026, the learned First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and, while upholding the plaintiff's entitlement to the principal benefits, confined the interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.1,27,31,495/- to the period from 15.03.2023, i.e. the date of withdrawal of the counter-claim by defendant No.3, till 19.02.2026, when the principal amount was paid. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the University has instituted the present Regular Second Appeal. Since the principal benefits have already been released pursuant to the settlement between the parties, the surviving controversy in the present appeal is confined to the legality and sustainability of the award of interest @ 9% per annum for the period from 15.03.2023 to 19.02.2026. CONTENTIONS RAISED OB BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS- UNIVERSITY 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-University contends that the learned First Appellate Court, having categorically held that the University was justified in withholding the retiral benefits in view of the rival claims of the widow and the nominee-parents and that no fault could be found with its decision to insist upon a succession certificate, erred in fastening liability to pay interest. It is submitted that the withholding was bona fide and occasioned by the competing claims, and there being no finding of negligence, mala fides or unlawful withholding, the University could not be saddled with interest. Reliance is placed upon the findings recorded in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) impugned judgment, wherein the learned First Appellate Court itself observed that the University could not be held responsible for withholding the amount and could not be “punished by awarding interest” in the absence of any wrong on its part. It is, thus, argued that the award of interest, despite such categorical findings, is self-contradictory and legally unsustainable. 10.1 Learned counsel further contends that 15.03.2023 could not be treated as the date from which interest became payable, as defendant No.3 had merely withdrawn her counter-claim on that date and the suit continued to remain pending thereafter. The University was, therefore, under no obligation to release the benefits while the matter remained sub judice. It is urged that the benefits were released upon resolution of the competing claims and that, in any event, no basis was assigned for awarding interest @ 9% per annum. DECISION AND REASONING 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper- book. I am unable to find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. 12. The only surviving controversy in the present appeal is with regard to the liability of the appellants-University to pay interest on the retiral benefits ultimately released to respondent No.1. The learned First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, rightly found that the University was justified in withholding the benefits in view of the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and the competing claim raised by defendant No.3. No fault was, thus, attributable to the University in withholding the amount during the subsistence of such circumstances. 13. As regards the alleged settlement between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 on 26.10.2022, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly noticed that the same finds no mention in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Further, TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, purportedly affidavits of the parents of the deceased acknowledging the plaintiff's entitlement to the post-death benefits, are undated and bear no attestation by a Notary Public. The said documents could, at best, indicate the intention of the deponents, but could not furnish a reliable basis for recording a finding of settlement or entitlement. 14. The position, however, materially changed on 15.03.2023, when defendant No.3, in the presence of the parties before the learned Trial Court, made a categorical statement that she did not press her counter-claim, whereupon the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The competing claim which had hitherto justified withholding of the benefits, thus, ceased to subsist. The University, having itself relied upon the existence of such competing claim as the basis for withholding the amount, cannot seek to continue the same justification after its withdrawal. The learned First Appellate Court, therefore, rightly treated 15.03.2023 as the date from which the interest became payable to the plaintiff. 15. Further, the plea that the suit remained pending thereafter and was ultimately decreed on 20.11.2023 does not advance the case of the appellant. There was neither any order restraining the University from releasing the benefits nor any other demonstrated legal impediment after 15.03.2023. Mere pendency of the suit could not, in the absence of a subsisting rival claim, justify withholding the benefits indefinitely, particularly when the principal amount remained unpaid until 19.02.2026. The contention that the findings in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the impugned judgment are inconsistent with the award of interest is equally misconceived. The observations therein that no fault could be found with the University relate to the period during which the rival claim and other circumstances justified withholding of the benefits. Upon withdrawal of the counter-claim on 15.03.2023, the basis for such withholding ceased to exist. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 RSA-2869-2026 (O&M) There is, therefore, no inconsistency in the findings of the learned First Appellate Court. 16. The challenge to the rate of interest is also without merit. The interest awarded is compensatory in nature and has been confined to the period commencing from 15.03.2023, and not from the date of death or the institution of suitor or any anterior date. Having regard to the principal amount of Rs.1,27,31,495/- which remained unpaid till 19.02.2026, interest @ 9% per annum cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary 17. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, there being no misreading or any misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 18. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall also stand disposed off. 07.08.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.08.14 16:30 I agree to specified portions of this document