Gurmit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -1-
106+209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023
DECIDED ON:31.10.2026
GURMIT KAUR
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
.....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate,
Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Lal Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG Punjab
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CM-19961-CWP-1580-2023
The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on
record an additional affidavit, in compliance with the order dated 09.10.2026
passed by this Court, furnishing head-wise particulars of the delay in release of
the retiral benefits, pension and family pension of Late Sh. Sucha Singh,
husband of the petitioner, along with the interest claimed thereon.
For the reasons mentioned in the application as well as submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed.
Additional affidavit is taken on record.
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -2-
Main case
Prayer
The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, particularly in the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondents to release the pension/arrears of pension and other retiral benefits of
her husband, Late Sh. Sucha Singh (Retired Panchayat Secretary), along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates on which the
amounts became due and payable till their actual realization.
The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to release
family pension in her favour, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
from the respective dates on which the same became due and payable till its
actual realization, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in R.S.
Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others , (1997) 117 PLR 6.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, is the widow of Late Sh. Sucha Singh, who retired
from service as Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Samiti, Chogawan, District
Amritsar, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019.The petitioner
instituted the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents to release the pension, arrears of pension
and other retiral benefits of her deceased husband, along with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from the respective dates of entitlement till realization,
besides family pension along with interest.
The petitioner asserts that despite the retirement of her husband on
31.08.2019, his retiral benefits were not released within the stipulated period. He
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -3-
repeatedly approached the concerned authorities through representations dated
29.03.2022, 23.05.2022, 09.08.2022 and 19.12.2022, seeking release of his
pension and other outstanding dues. It is further averred that the deceased
employee was suffering from serious ailments, including having undergone a
kidney transplant, and had incurred substantial medical expenditure, for which
he had borrowed money from relatives and other sources. The petitioner
contends that the continued withholding of retiral dues caused grave financial
hardship to her husband. During the pendency of the writ petition, replies by way
of affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents, explaining the processing
and release of the retiral benefits, including leave encashment and gratuity.
When the matter came up on 09.10.2026, learned counsel for
respondent No. 5 submitted that all outstanding dues, including pension, had
been released to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
contended that the release of the principal amounts did not extinguish her claim
for interest on account of the inordinate delay. Accordingly, this Court granted
time to the petitioner to furnish head-wise particulars of the amounts paid, their
respective dates of entitlement and disbursement, the period of delay and the
interest claimed thereon. In compliance, the petitioner has filed the present
application along with an additional affidavit dated 27.10.2026.
In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has furnished the following
head-wise particulars of the retiral benefits and the interest claimed thereon at
the rate of 16% per annum:
Sr. Head of
Amount
Due from Date of
Delay
Delay
payment
paid(Rs.)
Payment
(Y-M-D)
Days
1 Leave
4,17,580 01.09.2019 20.06.2022 2-9-19 1,023
encashment
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -4-
2 Gratuity 4,59,338 01.09.2019 23.09.2022 3-0-22 1,118
3 Pension
6,87,448 Monthly,
21.08.2023 3-11-20
1,450
arrears
first
(from
(oldest
(01.09.2019
instalment
01.09.2019)
month)
to
21.08.2019
to 232
21.12.2022)
(last
month)
21.08.2023 0-7-30
232
1,03,994 Monthly,
4 Family
(from
first
Pension
instalment
22.12.2022)
arrears
01.01.2023
(22.12.2022
to
31.07.2023)
5 Contributory
1,72,641 01.09.2019 11.08.2023 3-11-10 1,440
Provident
Fund (CPF)
The petitioner asserts that the delay in release of the aforesaid
amounts is admitted by the respondents in their replies. It is further contended
that the respondents have attributed the delay to administrative reasons and
described it as a bona fide delay, without disputing the fact of delay.
Contentions On Behalf Of The Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
application has been filed in compliance with the order dated 09.10.2026 and is
necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy surviving in the writ
petition. It is contended that the additional affidavit merely furnishes particulars
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -5-
of the delay in payment of the retiral benefits, the principal amounts whereof
have already been released during the pendency of the writ petition, and does not
introduce any new or independent cause of action.
Learned counsel submits that the particulars furnished are based
upon the replies filed by the respondents themselves and the documents already
forming part of the writ petition, including Annexures P-2 and P-3. It is further
contended that the respondents have admitted the relevant dates pertaining to the
retirement of Late Sh. Sucha Singh, sanction of certain retiral benefits and
processing of pension and other dues. The delay, according to the petitioner, is
attributable to the respondents, with no fault or omission on the part of the
deceased employee or the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that pension and retiral benefits are not a
bounty but valuable rights accruing upon retirement. Reliance is placed upon the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and
others , (1997) 117 PLR 6, and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair , (1985) 1 SCC 429, and D.D. Tewari v.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. , (2014) 8 SCC 894, in support of the
claim for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits.
On Behalf Of The Respondents
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the
outstanding dues, including pension, have already been released to the petitioner
and that no principal amount remains payable. The respondents rely upon their
respective replies filed in the writ petition, wherein the processing and release of
the retiral benefits have been explained. Their stand is that the release of certain
amounts was dependent upon completion of requisite formalities and availability
of the necessary budgetary allocation.
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -6-
Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the principal
dues having been disbursed, the writ petition has become infructuous. The
respondents oppose the petitioner's claim for interest to the extent it is not
admitted or requires determination by this Court on the basis of the relevant facts
and applicable law.
Analysis
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings, replies filed on behalf of the respondents, the order dated 09.10.2026
and the additional affidavit sought to be placed on record.
The controversy at this stage concerns the admissibility of the
additional affidavit and whether the release of the principal retiral dues during
the pendency of the writ petition renders the entire matter infructuous. The
record reflects that, vide order dated 09.10.2026, the petitioner was specifically
granted time to furnish head-wise particulars of the delay in release of retiral
benefits and the interest claimed thereon. The additional affidavit has been filed
in compliance with the said direction.The particulars furnished relate to the
amounts already claimed in the writ petition, their dates of entitlement and
disbursement, the period of delay and the interest claimed. The affidavit,
therefore, does not introduce any new cause of action or materially alter the
nature of the writ petition, but furnishes particulars necessary for adjudication of
the claim already raised.
Coming to the merits of the controversy, Late Sh. Sucha Singh
retired from service on 31.08.2019. The petitioner asserts that his retiral benefits
became payable upon retirement but were not released within a reasonable
period. The petitioner relies upon the representations submitted by her deceased
husband and the correspondence exchanged between the concerned authorities.
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -7-
The additional affidavit furnishes head-wise particulars of the amounts paid,
their dates of entitlement and disbursement and the period of delay, based upon
the documents forming part of the record and the replies filed by the
respondents.
The release of the principal retiral dues during the pendency of the
writ petition does not, by itself, extinguish the petitioner's claim for interest on
account of delayed payment. The liability to pay interest has to be examined
independently, having regard to the nature of the benefits, the period of delay, the
reasons for withholding the amounts and the responsibility of the concerned
authorities. The respondents cannot contend that the mere release of the principal
amounts renders the claim for interest non-existent, if the petitioner is otherwise
able to establish that the delay was unjustified and attributable to the concerned
authorities.
The petitioner has relied upon R.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab
and others , (1997) 117 PLR 6, State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair , (1985) 1
SCC 429, and D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. , (2014) 8
SCC 894. The aforesaid judgments recognize the significance of timely
disbursement of retiral benefits and the entitlement to interest where such
benefits are withheld or delayed without justification.
Moreover, a full Bench of this Court in R.S. Randhawa vs. State of
Punjab and others, (1997) 117 PLR 6 dealing with a question of entitlement to
interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits held as under:
“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
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -8-
would not exceed two months front 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%.”
This principle squarely applies to the present case of the petitioner,
who is clearly entitled to interest on the delayed benefits.
Similarly, in “S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44” , it
was held by the Apex court that even in the absence of statutory rules, an
employee is entitled to claim interest on delayed payment under Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution, while observing that,
“The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral
benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that
those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the
circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view thatthe grievance voiced by
the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to
interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field,
the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If
there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for
the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But
even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or
Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the
Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are
not in the nature of 'bounty' is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no
authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -9-
opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine
even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
Furthermore, in “D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs v. Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894” , the Supreme Court reiterated that
denial of timely payment of lawful dues warrants award of interest as
compensation, while categorically holding that,
“4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the
learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal
position has given a direction to the employer-respondent to pay the
erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the
legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest
for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to
exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in
denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date
of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per
the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment
referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum
both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to
be paid by the respondent.”
The question of the rate of interest, however, would have to be
determined in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in accordance
with applicable law. It is also relevant to observe that while the petitioner has
claimed interest at the rate of 16% per annum in the additional affidavit, the
original writ petition contains a claim for interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
The appropriate rate and period of interest are required to be considered on the
basis of the record and submissions of the parties.
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM-19961-CWP-2026 in/and
CWP-1580-2023 -10-
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, the present application is
allowed. The additional affidavit dated 27.10.2026 filed by the petitioner,
furnishing head-wise particulars of the delay in release of retiral benefits,
pension and family pension and the interest claimed thereon, is taken on record.
The release of the principal retiral dues during the pendency of the
writ petition shall not, by itself, be construed as rendering the claim for interest
infructuous. The said claim shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance
with law, on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is
hereby held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the delayed payment of
retiral benefits, pension and family pension from the date the amount became
due till the date of its actual realization.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
31.10.2026 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
MEENU
2026.11.05 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document