CWP-4979 v. Mr. Gaurav Datta and Ms. Sris

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Gaurav Datta and Ms. Sris HARPREET SINGH BRAR or the s. Srishti Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the for the respondents. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India praying for issuance re of suance of a writ in the nature of mandamus us directing the respondents to re s viz. to release the retiral benefits viz. Gratuity, leav y, leave encashment to the petitioner p.a. tioner along with interest @18% p.a. from the date e date same fell due till date of actual actual realization.

2. Learned counsel for the petition etitioner, inter alia, contends that the at the only survivin urviving dispute pertains to the paym unt of e payment of interest on account of delayed paym d payment of gratuity and leave encash retiral encashment while releasing the retiral benefits. Lea s. Learned counsel further submits th y was its that, admittedly, the gratuity was PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4979- -2017 2 paid after a d ter a delay of seven and a half years a after a ears and the leave encashment after a delay of elev f eleven years. The petitioner retired 14 as retired from service on 31.12.2014 as Inspector Gra tor Grade-II, however, his retiral dues iately l dues were not released immediately upon his retir is retirement. The respondents were duty-bound to disburse the same within two m two months from the date of retirem oner’s retirement; however, the petitioner’s pensionary b nary benefits were released only afte stified ly after an inordinate and unjustified delay. As su As such, the delay in releasing al s the ing all his retiral dues entitles the petitioner for er for grant of interest on delayed pay d payment in terms of the judgment rendered by a ed by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S A.S. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. S vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT or the SCT 343. Learned counsel for the petitioner fur er further submits that, at the time of nt, no time of the petitioner’s retirement, no disciplinary o inary or judicial proceedings were pen d any ere pending against him, nor had any charge-sheet sheet been issued. In fact the charge er the harge sheet has been issued after the retirement of ent of petitioner i.e. on 28.12.2017 .2017 with regard to the misconduct took place in lace in the year 2009 and 2012-201 law. 2013, which is forbidden in law Learned cou d counsel relied on the judgment p WP- ent passed by this Court in CWP 23151-2025, 025, Vasdev Singh Versus State of ed on e of Punjab and others, decided on

11.08.2025 to support his case.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for at the el for the respondents submit that the retiral dues h dues have already been paid to the peti ble to he petitioner. However he is unable to dispute that t that there has been an inordinate de retiral ate delay in the release of the retiral dues and tha nd that the case of the petitioner st y the ner stands squarely covered by the judgment pa passed in A.S. Randhawa (supra ra). supra) and Vasdev Singh (supra) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4979- -2017 3 Learned coun d counsel for the respondents is also e fact is also not able to controvert the fact that the petit e petitioner stands retired on 31.12.2 t was 1.12.2014 and the charge-sheet was issued on 28. on 28.12.2017 i.e. after retirement of t nt of the petitioner.

4. Having heard the submission m or the sion made by learned counsel for the parties and a and after perusing the record with th spires ith their able assistance, it transpires that the petiti e petitioner retired from the service on l dues ice on 31.12.2014 and his retiral dues have been p een paid after an inordinately long y long delay. The respondent was obligated to r ed to release his all retiral dues within ment. within two months of his retirement. As such, his h, his case is squarely covered by th a Full by the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this his Court in A.S. Randhawa (sup d that (supra) wherein it was opined that disbursement ement of pension and other benefits ust be nefits payable at retirement must be done in a tim n a timely manner. Any delay over a ua the over a period of two months qua the said disburse sbursement would entitle the retired em on the ired employee to claim interest on the t due. amount due.

5. In view of the above, the prese f with present petition is disposed of with direction to to the respondent/competent autho n the t authority to release interest on the delayed paym d payment of the admissible retiral du ner at tiral dues accrued to the petitioner at the rate of 6% e of 6% per annum. Such interest shal expiry st shall be calculated from the expiry of two mont months after his retirement until th The il the date of actual payment. The needful be do l be done within a period of three mon pt of a e months from the date of receipt of a certified copy d copy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4979- -2017 4

6. Pending miscellaneous ap stands ous application(s), if any, also stands ed of. disposed of. January 16 P.C 16, 2026 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.16 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document