Surinder Nath vs State Of Punjab And Others

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of thhe Constitutionn of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits vizz. Gratuity, leave encashment to the petitioneer along with interest @18% p.a. from the date same fell due till date of actuaal realization.

Learned counsel for the petitiooner, inter alia, contends that thhe only survivving dispute pertains to the payyment of interest on account of delayed payyment of gratuity and leave encashment while releasing the retiraal benefits. Leearned counsel further submits that, admittedly, the gratuity was paid after a delay of seven and a half years and the leave encashment after a delay of eleeven years. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2014 as Inspector Grade-II, however, his retiral duees were not released immediatelly upon his rettirement. The respondents were duty-bound to disburse the same within two months from the date of retireement; however, the petitioner’’s pensionary benefits were released only after an inordinate and unjustified delay. As such, the delay in releasing all his retiral dues entitles thhe petitioner foor grant of interest on delayed payment in terms of the judgmennt rendered byy a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supdg. Engineeer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343. Learned counsel for thhe petitioner fuurther submits that, at the time of the petitioner’s retirement, no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against him, nor had any charge-sheeet been issued. In fact the charge sheet has been issued after thhe retirement of petitioner i.e. on 28.12.20177 with regard to the misconducct took place in the year 2009 and 2012-20013, which is forbidden in laww. Learned coounsel relied on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPP-23151-20255, Vasdev Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 11.08.2025 to support his case.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that thhe retiral dues have already been paid to the peetitioner. However he is unable to dispute thatt there has been an inordinate delay in the release of the retiraal dues and that the case of the petitioner stands squarely covered by thhe judgment passed in A.S. Randhawa (suppra) and Vasdev Singh (supra).

Learned counsel for the respondents is alsso not able to controvert the facct that the pettitioner stands retired on 31.12.2014 and the charge-sheet waas issued on 288.12.2017 i.e. after retirement of the petitioner.

Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for thhe parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpirees that the petiitioner retired from the service on 31.12.2014 and his retiral duees have been paid after an inordinately long delay. The respondent waas obligated too release his all retiral dues withhin two months of his retirement. As such, hiis case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa (suupra) wherein it was opined thaat disbursement of pension and other benefitts payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months qua thhe said disburssement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on thhe amount due.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of witth direction too the respondent/competent authority to release interest on thhe delayed payyment of the admissible retiral dues accrued to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum. Such interest shall be calculated from the expiry of two monnths after his retirement until the date of actual payment. Thhe needful be done within a period of three moonths from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.