Dharam Pal Malra vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 1 of 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
208 CWP-14005-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2026
Dharam Pal Malra ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate with
Ms. Swati Bansal and
Mr. Dushyant Godara, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Suneel Ranga, D.A.G., Haryana .
Mr. H.S.Oberoi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a Writ
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 09.02.2022
(Annexure P-6) and Order dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the
respondent no. 1 whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest
on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits has been declined
wrongly by applying the provisions of the Rule which are not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the present case; and for issuance of a Writ
in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the interest
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 2 of 12
@ 18% per annum on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits from the
date of accrual till the date of realisation.
2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner had joined the Haryana Civil Secretariat Chandigarh as Clerk;
and had risen through the ranks to ultimately retire as Joint Secretary on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019. It is submitted that
when petitioner was serving as Deputy Secretary, his basic pay was
Rs.83,600, increased to Rs.86,100/- due to annual increment on
01.07.2019. On promotion as Joint Secretary, his basic pay was fixed as
Rs.91,000/- w.e.f. 30.07.2019 vide order dated 16.08.2019. It is contended
that however retiral benefits were released to the petitioner with a delay
of 17 months as depicted in the tabular form (at page 67 of the paper
book), as follows:-
S.
No.
Amount upon
which the
interest is due
Period of interest Special remarks
1. D.C.R.G.:-
a) Rs.118970/-
01.11.2019 to
15.12.2020
This amount was
paid to me on
16.12.2020.
b) Rs. 67638/-
01.11.2019 to
31.12.2020
This amount was
paid to me on
01.01.2021
c) Rs. 77150/-
01.11.2019 to
31.01.2021
This amount was
paid to me on
01.02.2021.
2. Commuted value of Pension
Rs.150678/- 01.09.2019 to
10.12.2020
Out of amount of
Rs.150678/- for the
period 01.09.2019
to 30.11.2019 @
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 3 of 12
1500/-per month
total amount of Rs.
22500/-was
adjusted (recovery
of commutation of
pension) amount of
Rs. 1,128,178/- was
paid to me on
11.12.2020.
whereas the
Government had
received the interest
on the amount of
Rs. 150678/- from
01.09.2019 @ 8.75%
per annum.
3. Arrears of difference of pension i.e. Rs.3750/- per month + D.R.
@ 17%
Rs.70208/- 01.11.2020 to
14.01.2021
Rs. 70208/-, 8000/-
was deducted as tax
and Rs. 60208/-was
paid to me on
15.01.2021.
3. It is contended that therefore, petitioner is entitled to
interest for delayed payment of retiral benefits. Accordingly, petitioner
had made a Representation dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) to
respondent No.1 because his retiral benefits as Joint Secretary were not
being released. Petitioner has also submitted a Representation dated
21.09.2020 (Annexure P-3) for issuance of revised PPO, GPO, CPO and for
releasing the withheld amount of Rs.77,150/-. In November 2020,
respondent No.1 had decided the matter with regard to recovery of
arrears; and ordered that no recovery was to be made from the
petitioner; and retiral benefits were released to the petitioners in
DIVYANSHI instalments between the period 16.12.2020 to 01.03.2021 which are more
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 4 of 12
than 1 and 1/2 years after the retirement of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that more than Rs. 4.5 lakhs were wrongly withheld from the
petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted another Representation
dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) that he may be paid interest on the
delayed payment as per Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2016’). However, case of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated
09.02.2022 (Annexure P-6) by stating that petitioner is not entitled to such
benefit as per Rule 79 (5) (a) of the Rules, 2016. Petitioner again made a
Representation dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-7); which was again
rejected by respondent No.1 vide second impugned order dated
17.03.2022 (Annexure P-8) rejecting claim of the petitioner for interest.
Petitioner had again served a legal notice dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P-
9). Vide communication dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure P-10), respondent
No.1 had informed the petitioner that nothing was due to him on account
of the interest.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner is
entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits and the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the ground that the
respondent no. 1 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of
interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits has assumed
and presumed the facts and has taken the aid of Rule 79 (5) (a) of the
aforesaid Rules which is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Rather Rule 79 (1) of the aforesaid rules squarely covers
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 5 of 12
the case of the petitioner. The distinction between Rule 79(1) and 79 (5) is
very clear as 79(1) speaks about the fact that no interest is payable if the
payment of pension has been authorized within three months from the
date of retirement and where the pensionary benefits are authorized after
the prescribed period and the delay is attributable to the administrative
lapse then the employer is liable to pay the interest and in case the same
is attributable to the retiree then no interest is payable. Rule 79 (5) speaks
of the fact that no interest is permissible on the arrears of pensionary
benefits if the pensionary benefits are revised retrospectively as a result
of the Government's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of the
Government employee on grant of emoluments higher than the
emoluments on which the pensionary benefits have been already paid or
determined. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the
petitioner when his pension papers were submitted by respondent no. 1
to the respondent no. 2 was working on the post of Deputy Secretary and
the said papers were submitted prior to 3 months. When the Pension
Payment Order, Commutation Pension Order, and Gratuity Payment Order
were issued, thereafter the petitioner earned an annual increment on
01.07.2019 on the post of Deputy Secretary and one day prior to his
retirement the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Secretary.
Consequently, as petitioner earned annual increment his basic pay stood
raised and on earning the promotion the basic pay was also fixed in the
higher scale. Meaning thereby all these happened prior to the retirement
of the petitioner; and as such as per rule 79 (1) of the Rules, 2016 the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 6 of 12
petitioner was entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of his
retiral benefits.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 has assumed
that the petitioner is not entitled to the interest on the delayed payment
by taking the aid of sub-Rule 5 (a); which, however, speaks of the
pensionary benefits being revised retrospectively. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case the pensionary benefits were not
revised retrospectively at all. As such, the wrong application of the Sub
Rule 5 (a) of the Rule 79 is totally misdirected and is liable to be quashed
by this Court and the respondent no. 1 is liable to be directed to pay the
interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits.
6. It is further argued that petitioner is entitled to interest on
delayed payment as nothing is attributable to him at any point of time
rather the respondent no. 1 and officials working under him had left no
stone unturned to mentally harass the petitioner by reopening the settled
matter with regard to the grant of the arrears of the ACP and had taken a
wrong decision for withholding of the gratuity to the tune of Rs. 77,150/-.
The callous attitude of respondent no. 1 is also proved from the fact that
the instructions of the year 2017 which clearly stipulates that no recovery
could be affected after the withdrawal of the ACP but still in order to
harass the petitioner the matter was re-opened after his retirement
whereas the instructions stated otherwise. As such, the conduct of the
respondent no. 1 shows that they wanted to create hindrance by adopting
any method.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 7 of 12
7. Thus, petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate right to
claim interest on the delayed payment by applying the wrong rules and is
being made to suffer financial hardship. As such, petitioner is left with no
other alternative except to approach this Court by filing the instant Civil
Writ Petition. The detailed representation given by the petitioner for
claiming the same have been rejected without application of mind.
8. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed;
and following prayers be accepted: -
“i) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order
dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-6) and Order dated
17.03.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent no. 1
whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on
the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits has been
declined wrongly by applying the provisions of the Rule which
are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case; and
ii) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to grant the interest @18% per annum on the
delayed payment of the retiral benefits from the date of
accrual till the date of realization.”
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have
vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner
and have further referred to their respective written statements to point
out that there was no deliberate delay caused on the part of the
respondents and that there were several issues pertaining to the service
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 8 of 12
book of the petitioner which needed to be reconciled. Details of which
have been duly mentioned in the written statements.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 has additionally pointed out
that even in terms of Rule 72 (A) (4) of the Rules, 2016, petitioner is not
entitled to interest on delayed payment. They accordingly pray for the
dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
11. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case
file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.
12. Perusal of para 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Preliminary Submissions of
the written statement dated 10.10.2022 filed on behalf of respondent
No.1 shows that valid, cogent and detailed reasons have been given
depicting the processing of the case of the petitioner; which clearly
establishes that there was no delay on the part of the respondents in
releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Relevant paras read as
follows: -
“3. That the pension case of petitioner as Deputy Secretary
was sent to the Principal Accountant General, Haryana
(Respondent No. 2) on 24 April 2019 (Annexure R-1), i.e.,
more than three months before his date of retirement, to
issue certificate and report in his favour. Pursuant thereto,
the Principal Accountant General, Haryana issued PPO, CPO
and DCRG after holding Rs. 50,000/- on account of license
fee.
4. That vide order dated 1/17/2019-4Estt. I dated 16
August 2019, pay of Sh. Dharam Pal Malra was fixed as Rs.
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 9 of 12
91,100/- and LPC and NDC was issued in favour of the
petitioner by the Accounts Branch on 20 December 2019
(Annexure R-2). However, Principal Accountant General was
requested to withhold an amount of Rs. 77150/- from the
gratuity of the petitioner, as he had been paid this amount in
the shape of arrears on account of grant of benefit of Assured
Career Progression (ACP) as Assistant with effect from 01
June 2006 under Rule-7(4) of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP)
Rules, 2008 vide order No. 1/18/2014-2E-1 dated 24 June
2014 (Annexure R-3) but later on the same was withdrawn by
the Government as per order No. 1/18/2014-2Estt-I dated 14
June 2017 (Annexure R-4) and it was also requested that the
balance amount of the gratuity may be released in favour of
the petitioner. Thereafter, the pension case of the petitioner
was sent to the Principal Accountant General, Haryana on 03
January 2020 (Annexure R-5) after doing the calculations all
over again and after revising his LPC alongwith NDC.
5. That the Principal Accountant General vide letter dated
03 March 2020 (Annexure R-6) raised the objections that only
either Rs. 50,000/- or 10% of Gratuity whichever is less can be
held back. The office again vide letter dated 28 May 2020
(Annexure R-7) requested the Principal Accountant General to
withhold Rs. 77150/-from the DCRG as the decision regarding
withdrawal of 1st ACP arrear was pending with the
Government. Thereafter, vide letter dated 10 July 2020
(Annexure R-8), the Principal Accountant General again
raised the same objections. Vide letter dated 28 August 2020
(Annexure R-9), the Principal Accountant General Haryana
was again requested to release the remaining DCRG after Rs.
77150/-.
6. That vide letter dated 02 Nov. 2020 (Annexure R-10),
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 10 of 12
the Principal Accountant General Haryana informed that vide
order dated 16 Oct. 2020 revised PPO, CPO and GPO e-mode
has been issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide
letter dated 16 December 2020 (Annexure R-11) accounts
branch issued final NDC in favour of the petitioner and sent
the same to the Principal Accountant General. Vide letter
dated 22 December 2020, Principal Accountant General was
requested to release the stop payment of Rs. 77150/- in
favour of the petitioner.”
13. A reading of the above shows that at no stage were the
respondents delaying or sitting on the file of the petitioner. Rather, due to
various anomaly in the Service book of the petitioner, release of
pensionary benefits was delayed.
14. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner was promoted as
Joint Secretary on 30.7.2019, which is only one day before the petitioner
retired on 31.7.2019. As such, as pointed out by the petitioner himself, on
his promotion as Joint Secretary, his basic pay was increased from
₹86,100/– to ₹91,000/– with effect from 30.7.2019 vide order dated
16.8.2019; which aspect was also required to be considered while
computing the pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner.
15. Further, relevant paras 4, 5 and 6 of the short reply dated
15.07.2026 filed by respondent No.2 i.e. Office of the Principal Accountant
General (A&E) Haryana, Chandigarh reads as follows: -
“4. That, the respondent No.1 viz. office of the Chief Secretary
to Government, Haryana vide it's letter dated 24.04.2019
forwarded the Pension case of petitioner i.e. Dharam Pal
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 11 of 12
Malra with the recommendation to withhold Rs.50,000/-
from the DCRG amount on account of NOC/NDC in respect of
Government accommodation allotted to him. Accordingly,
strictly as per the recommendation of the Office of the
respondent No.1/PSA and in line with Rule No.72 (A) (4) of
Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2016, Basic pension
amounting to Rs.41,800/- per month w.e.f. 01.08.2019, DCRG
amounting to Rs.14,94,928/ (Total DCRG Rs.15,44,928/- less
withheld DCRG Rs.50,000/-) and Commuted value of pension
amounting to Rs. 16,79,558/ were authorized by the Office of
the answering respondent No.2 on 13.06.2019. Subsequently,
the respondent No.1 viz. office of the Chief Secretary to
Government, Haryana vide it's letter dated 21.08.2020 while
enclosing the letter dated 19.09.2019 of the Office of the
Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh recommend to
release the withheld DCRG amounting to Rs.50,000/- on
account of NOC/NDC in respect of Government
accommodation allotted to him. Accordingly, strictly as per
the recommendation of respondent No.1/PSA, revised DCRG
amounting to Rs.1,18,970/- (Total DCRG Rs. 16,13,898/- less
DCRG already paid Rs.14,94,928/ including withheld DCRG)
was authorised by the office of answering respondent No.2 in
favour the petitioner viz. Dharam Pal Malra on 13.10.2020.
5. That, further the office of the respondent No.1 i.e. Chief
Secretary to Government, Haryana vide it's letter dated
28.08.2020 (received on 07.09.2020) forwarded the revised
pension case of the petitioner viz. Dharam Pal Malra along
with the recommendation to release the PPO, CPO and DCRG
after withholding Rs.77,150/- to the Office of the answering
respondent No.2 for authorisation. Accordingly, revised
pension amounting to Rs.45,550/- w.e.f. 01.08.2019, DCRG
amounting to Rs.67,638/- (Total DCRG Rs. 17,58,686/ less
DCRG already paid Rs. 16,13,898/- less withheld DCRG
77,150/-) and Commuted value of pension amounting to Rs.
1,50,678/-(Total CVP Rs.18,30,236/- less CVP already paid Rs.
16,79,558/-) were authorised by the Office of the answering
respondent No.2 on 16.10.2020.
6. That, lastly, the office of the respondent No.1 i.e. Chief
Secretary to Government, Haryana vide it's letter dated
16.12.2020 (received on 22.12.2020) as per FD's advice and
approval of Chief Secretary forwarded request to release the
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-14005-2022 (O&M) 12 of 12
withheld DCRG amounting to Rs.77,150/- on account of ACP
arrear to petitioner viz. Dharampal Malra. Accordingly,
strictly as per the recommendation of the office of the
respondent No.1/PSA, withheld DCRG amounting to
Rs.77,150/- was authorised on 03.02.2021.”
16. No replication has been filed by the petitioner controverting
the aforesaid facts as stated by the respondents.
17. Hence, no ground is made out for grant of interest. The
present Writ Petition is hereby dismissed .
18. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
12.11.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.11.13 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document