Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 1 of 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15687-2024 (O&M)
218 Date of decision: 14.09.2026
Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Addl. A.G., Haryana
*
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 impugned order dated 26.04.2024
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Director, Urban Estates Haryana vide which
the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on delayed payment of
pensionary benefits of her rights has been rejected in an illegal and
arbitrary manner; AND issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to grant interest to the petitioner on delayed
payment in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this
Hon’ble High Court in the case of A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab
decided on 16.05.1997 (Annexure P-6) as the wife of the petitioner had
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 2 of 17
expired on 12.07.2017 and the payment was released to the petitioner
after considerable delay.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that the now deceased wife of the petitioner was working as
Senior scale Stenographer in the respondent-Department. She had died by
suicide on 12.07.2017. On 27.07.2017 itself, petitioner had submitted a
letter to the Additional Director, Urban Estate, Haryana for release of
pensionary benefits of his wife. In response, Petitioner received a letter
dated 08.08.2017 from the respondents asking him to supply the relevant
documents. On 10.08.2017 itself, petitioner had submitted all the required
documents alongwith application for release of Rs.25,000/- as Ex.Gratia
amount. He also submitted requisite form pertaining to grant of death-
cum-retirement gratuity; payment of accumulations in the GPF account;
release of payment of Leave Encashment; payment of GIS; arrears of
salary et cetera. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite the prompt
action taken by the petitioner, the said amounts were not released to the
petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted a Representation dated
09.10.2017 followed by reminders dated 13.11.2017, 27.11.2017,
18.12.2017 and 19.01.2018. On 20.02.2018, petitioner had received a
letter from respondent No.3-Director, Urban Estates Haryana informing
that final report of Police is still awaited regarding cause of death of his
wife and, therefore, benefits cannot be released at this stage. Thereafter,
petitioner had received another letter dated 24.08.2018 from SPIO, office
of Director, Urban Estate, Haryana informing that in the suicide case of
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 3 of 17
Smt. Meenakshi, final report of Police is awaited, and benefits cannot be
released at this stage.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that however, as per the RTI
information received by the petitioner, no criminal case had been
registered against anybody including the petitioner. As per the information
received by the petitioner, no criminal proceedings have been initiated
against anybody in the suicide case of the wife of the petitioner. This fact
was admitted in a letter dated 01.12.2017 written by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Panchkula and was received by the petitioner by
way of RTI. Accordingly, petitioner had submitted Representations dated
05.11.2018 and 26.12.2018. Thereafter, petitioner had submitted a
Representation dated 09.01.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula
that directions may be given to the concerned officials of the Police
Department for submission of pending reports to the Director, Urban
Estates Haryana, Panchkula in a time bound manner, so that the matter
does not get delayed as the same is pending with the Police Department
since long.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that a letter dated
05.03.2019 was written by the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula in which request was made
that on the application of the petitioner necessary action be taken within
one week and the same be informed to the office. Yet, no action was
taken. As such, petitioner continued to submit numerous Representations
even thereafter on 03.04.2019, 21.05.2019, 24.06.2019 and 23.07.2019.
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 4 of 17
5. Finally, as no action was taken on the various Representations
submitted by the petitioner, petitioner served legal notice dated
30.08.2019 upon the respondents through his counsel. As still no action
was taken, petitioner was constrained to to approach this Court by way of
CWP-27583-2019 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others ,
praying for release of all the death benefits of his deceased wife alongwith
interest thereupon. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 26.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) taking note of Affidavit
dated 01.02.2021 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Panchkula; whereupon this Court had directed the competent authority to
pass a fresh order within one month in accordance with law keeping in
view the said Affidavit dated 01.02.2021.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as needful was still not
done, petitioner was constrained to file COCP-1140-2021 titled as Rajesh
Kumar vs. A.K. Singh and others . Pursuant thereto, certain payments
were made to the petitioner from 23.12.2021 to 09.03.2023. As no
interest was paid to the petitioner on the said payments, petitioner had
submitted a Representation dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) to the
Director, Urban Estate, Haryana/respondent No.3 for grant of interest on
delayed payment. In the meantime, Contempt Petition filed by the
petitioner was disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 11.05.2023
(Annexure P-3). As still no action was taken by the respondents on the
Representation dated 16.09.2022, petitioner had again approached this
Court by way of CWP-1274-2024 titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. State of
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 5 of 17
Haryana and others praying for interest on the delayed payment in view
of Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of
Punjab, decided on 16.05.1997. The said CWP-1274-2024 came to be
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) on
the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State that the said
Representation dated 16.09.2022 “will be decided by the competent
authority within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of
certified copy of this order by passing an appropriate speaking order and
in case, after the decision, the petitioner is found entitled for any benefit,
the same will be extended to him within a further period of four weeks.”
7. Learned Senior Counsel submits that however, vide the
impugned order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-5), claim of the petitioner
has been rejected on the ground of Rule 52 (1) of the Haryana Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 2016. It is contended that a perusal of the same
would show that the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as
the petitioner was never charged with the offence of murdering his wife.
Infact no FIR was ever registered by the Police in relation to the death of
the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, the Department could not have
withheld the family pension and other benefits which were required to be
paid to the petitioner on the basis of the Rule 52 (1).
8. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that in the impugned
order itself it has been admitted by the respondents that nobody was
responsible for the death of the wife of the petitioner and no FIR was
registered against anybody. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 6 of 17
petitioner on the basis of Rule 52 (1) of the Haryana Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 2016 is not justifiable.
9. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of " A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab"
reported as 1997 (3) SCT 468 had granted 12% interest on delayed
payment and had directed the Chief Secretaries of the two State
Governments to fix the responsibility of the erring officials in each case
pertaining to their States in regard to the delay caused in the
disbursement of retiral benefits to the petitioners and recover the amount
of interest from them so that there is no loss caused to the State
Exchequer.
10. He accordingly prays that the present Writ Petition be
allowed; and following prayers be accepted:-
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by
the Director, Urban Estates Haryana vide which the claim of
the petitioner for grant of interest on delayed payment of
pensionary benefits of her rights has been rejected in an
illegal and arbitrary manner;
ii. issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to grant interest to the petitioner on delayed
payment in view of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench
of this Hon’ble High Court in the case of A.S. Randhawa Vs.
State of Punjab decided on 16.05.1997 (Annexure P-6) as the
wife of the petitioner had expired on 12.07.2017 and the
payment was released to the petitioner after considerable
delay.”
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 7 of 17
11. Per contra, learned State Counsel has strongly controverted
the submissions of the petitioner and has contended that no interest is
payable to the petitioner as no delay was occasioned on the part of the
respondent-Department. Learned State Counsel takes this Court through
the history of this case as enumerated in the written statement dated
04.09.2025 filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 3, to contend that it is
amply borne out from the record that there is no delay in releasing
pensionary benefits by the respondent-Department. As such, petitioner is
not entitled for any interest on delayed payment of pensionary benefits
which had been kept on hold as a precautionary step during the pendency
of Police investigation as per rules and after clearance from the Police
Department all the benefits were released immediately without any delay.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed for. Therefore,
the present writ petition be dismissed being devoid of merit.
12. 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.
13. Factual matrix of the case has already been noted herein
above. It is admitted case that wife of the petitioner namely, Smt.
Meenakshi had died by suicide on 12.07.2017. Almost immediately,
thereafter, petitioner had submitted a letter dated 27.07.2017 for grant of
family pension and other death benefits to him. As the death of the wife
of the petitioner was not a natural death, and as she had died by suicide,
the respondent/ Urban Estate Department had written a letter dated
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 8 of 17
18.10.2017 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sector-15,
Panchkula for sending report about criminal proceedings conducted in the
suicide case of the deceased wife of the petitioner. As no response was
received, the respondent-department had sent Reminder dated
09.11.2017; upon which a reply dated 01.12.2017 was received from the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula; whereby it was informed
that:-
“In connection with the subjected matter stated that on
dated 12.07.2017 on receipt of information about the suicide
committed by Meenakshi the proceedings under section 174
of Cr.P.C were started and postmortem was got done in the
Civil Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. During the post martum
the bisra taken of deceased by the doctor was sent to
Forensic Laboratory, Madhuban for obtaining result of the
report of which is still awaited. After receipt of report the
cause of death can be known. Till date no criminal case has
been registered against anybody. Therefore, after receipt of
bisra report from the Forensic Laboratory Madhuban
proceedings shall be initiated."
14. Again, vide letter dated 25.01.2018, the Urban Estate
Department had written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Panchkula seeking to know the status of the report of deceased Smt.
Meenakshi. A reply dated 03.02.2018 was received informing that report
from Madhuban had still not been received. It is undisputed that
thereafter the Urban Estate Department had time and again written
letters dated 31.07.2018, 11.01.2019, 13.03.2019 to the Deputy
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 9 of 17
Commissioner of Police, Panchkula requesting to know the status of the
reports of deceased i.e. Smt. Meenakshi. On 01.04.2019, a reply was
received by the respondent-Department informing that as per the PMR
and the chemical analysis report, the Board had opined that cause of
death of Smt. Meenakshi is due to hanging which is antonym in nature.
15. Accordingly, the Urban Estate Department had again written
a letter dated 20.09.2019 seeking report regarding charges against anyone
as well as closure report of the case of deceased Smt. Meenakshi. In
response thereto, a letter dated 22.10.2019 was received from the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Panchkula reiterating the above information.
Accordingly, Urban Estates Department had again written a letter dated
13.01.2020 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula about any
order passed by the concerned Court in case of deceased Smt. Meenakshi.
16. As already noted above that in the meantime, petitioner had
approached this Court by way of CWP-27583-2019 titled as Rajesh Kumar
vs. State of Haryana and others which was disposed of vide order dated
26.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) which reads as follows:-
“The hearing of the case was held through video
conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the
Courts.
The petitioner's wife is stated to have died on
12.07.2017. Before her death, she was working as a Senior
Scale Stenographer in the Department of Urban Estate,
Haryana. The petitioner applied for release of the benefits as
per the policy adopted by the State Government. However,
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 10 of 17
the same were not released on the ground that the Police is
investigating the matter.
The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated
20.02.2018, 24.08.2018 and 28.03.2019, respectively
whereby, the payment of benefits as per the policy was
withheld, awaiting report from the Police.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, has filed an affidavit
dated 01.02.2021 and para 3 to 5 reads as under:-
"3. That postmortem of deceased Meenakshi was
conducted on 13.07.2017 and visra was sent to Karnal
for Chemical Examination. Chemical Examiner, Govt.
Hospital, Karnal, submitted Chemical Examination
report of visra vide letter no.1319-P dated 16.10.2018.
4. That after going through the postmortem report and
the report of Chemical Examiner the board of doctors,
vide their opinion dated 27.03.2019, opined that the
cause of death Meenakshi is due to hanging which is
antonym in nature.
5. That from investigation and from the opinion of
board of doctors regarding cause of death deceased
Meenakshi, it was found that Meenakshi had
committed suicide by hanging. As no body was found
responsible for her suicide so no FIR was registered in
this matter against anybody. Report in this regard was
sent to respondent no.3 vide this office letter
No.1250/ACP/PKL dated 24.10.2020 (copy attached as
Annexure R-1)."
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties
it is considered appropriate to direct the competent authority
to pass a fresh order within one month from today in
accordance with law in view of the subsequent development
i.e. the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Panchkula, dated 01.02.2021.
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 11 of 17
If the petitioner is found entitled to the amount, the
same shall be released to him within one month after passing
the order.” (Emphasis added)
17. From the above, it is clear that a final report to the effect that
no one was responsible for the suicide of Smt. Meenakshi, and that no FIR
was registered in the case, was sent to the respondent-department only
on 24.10.2020. The facts narrated above establish that despite repeated
queries made by the respondent-Department seeking information from
the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula regarding the report in the
case of death of Smt. Meenakshi, it was only by way of Affidavit dated
01.02.2021 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panchkula
before this Court in the afore-mentioned CWP-27583-2019 that it was
informed that as per report dated 24.10.2020 that “ As no body was found
responsible for her suicide so no FIR was registered in this matter against
anybody. Report in this regard was sent to respondent no.3 vide this office
letter No.1250/ACP/PKL dated 24.10.2020”
18. It is also admitted that the said Police clearance dated
24.10.2020 was brought to the notice of the respondents only by way of
above said Affidavit dated 01.02.2021 as mentioned in order dated
26.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). Soon, thereafter, the respondents initiated the
process to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. For this
purpose, vide letter dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure R-1) the respondent-
department asked the petitioner to submit affidavit of legal heirs of the
deceased Smt. Meenakshi for releasing the pensionary benefits as per
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 12 of 17
rules. In the meantime, petitioner had also filed COCP No.1140 of 2021
before this Court for releasing the death benefits to the petitioner. After
filing the contempt petition the petitioner filed an affidavit of legal heirs of
the deceased in the office of respondent-department only on 15.11.2021.
Vide letter dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure R-2) petitioner was asked to
submit the prescribed papers for releasing the death-cum-retirement
gratuity. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent-Department had
proceeded to release the payment of the death benefits to the petitioner
in the following manner: -
Sr.
No.
Amount Date of payment
1. Rs. 25,000/- (Ex. Gratia
payment)
23.12.2021
2. Rs. 44,756/- (GIS payment) 23.12.2021
3. Rs.4,87,659/- (Leave
encashment)
06.01.2022
4. Rs. 6,33,780/- (DCRG) 30.07.2022
5. Rs. 16,64,261/- (arrears of
financial assistance 1st Part)
15.03.2022
6. Rs. 17,52,284/- (arrears of
financial assistance 2nd
part)
18.05.2022
7. Rs. 7,70,630/- (arrears of
financial assistance 3rd
part)
09.03.2023

19. Thus, in the above facts, it cannot be said that any delay was
caused by the respondents; and they are, therefore, liable to pay interest.
20. It is the considered view of this Court that from the facts
enumerated above, it is clear that no delay in payment had been caused
on account of any omission or commission on the part of the respondent-
Department. It cannot be disputed that pensionary benefits of the
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 13 of 17
deceased Smt. Meenakshi could not have been released to the petitioner
during the pendency of investigation. It was necessary to ascertain as to
whether any family member of the deceased Smt. Meenakshi was
involved in abetting the commission of the suicide of Smt. Meenakshi. As
such, final report of the Police was rightly awaited to establish actual
cause of her death and the involvement of the petitioner or any other
person.
21. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon Rule 52(1) of the
Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 to submit that payment could
not have been delayed as petitioner had not been charged for murder.
The said Rule 52 (1), reads as under: -
"Where a family member, who in the event of death of
Government employee while in service or pensioner, is
eligible to receive family pension, is charged with the offence
of murdering the Govt. employee or pensioner or for abetting
in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such
member, including other eligible member(s) of the family to
receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the
conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against
him."
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that
as per the above Rule, pensionary benefits could have been withheld only
in case the petitioner or any family member is “charged” with the offence
of murdering the Govt. employee or for abetting in the commission of
such an offence. However, a determination in this regard - as to whether
the petitioner has to be charged or not - could only have been made upon
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 14 of 17
completion and conclusion of investigation. Such a determination was
made by the Police after investigation, only vide the report dated
24.10.2020. As demonstrated above, immediately upon receipt of these
said report, respondents have proceeded in the matter.
23. Furthermore, it is to be appreciated that the petitioner being
husband of Smt. Meenakshi, who had died by suicide, therefore, role of
the petitioner was bound to be under the scanner. As investigation was
still in progress, and no clearance had been received from the Police,
therefore, respondents were fully justified in suspending release of
benefits to the petitioner as a precautionary measure. Hence, there is no
delay in releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by respondent-
department, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
claimed. Action of the respondent-Department in keeping on hold release
of the dues as precautionary step during the pendency of the Police
investigation as per Rules, cannot be faulted; especially in view of the fact
that immediately after clearance of the Police Department, all benefits
were released forthwith to the petitioner without any delay.
24. Rather from the facts afore noted, it would appear that some
delay has been caused on part of the petitioner himself in supplying
relevant and necessary information as sought by the respondent-
Department to process the case.
25. The issue of grant of interest has been considered in depth by
a Large Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Central Bank of
India v. Ravindra” (SC) Law Finder Doc Id # 5386 . The said issue was also
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 15 of 17
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in another recent judgment in
“ I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan”, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id #
2713786 . After comprehensively considering the substantial case law on
the subject, their Lordships concluded, as follows:
“14. …… Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Courts have
the authority to determine the appropriate interest rate,
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in
accordance with law. That apart, the Courts have the discretion
to decide whether the interest is payable from the date of
institution of the suit, a period prior to that, or from the date of
the decree, depending on the specific facts of each case.
XXX XXX XXX
16. Be it noted, while the discretion to award interest,
whether pendente lite or post-decree, is well recognized, its ex-
ercise must be guided by equitable considerations. The rate
and period of interest cannot be applied mechanically or at an
unreasonably high rate without any rationale. Though it is not
possible to arrive at the actual value of improvement or the in-
flation on the fair consideration, if paid at the relevant point of
time, it is just and necessary that the rate of interest must be a
reparation for the appellant. The Court must ensure that while
the claimant is fairly compensated, the award does not be-
come punitive or unduly burdensome on the Judgement
Debtor. Therefore, the rate of interest should be determined in
a manner that balances both fairness and financial impact,
taking into account the "loss of use" principle and economic
prudence, in the specific facts of each case.
17. Considering the prolonged pendency of the dispute
regarding the valuation of shares, which has only been determ-
ined recently, and the substantial share amount involved, and
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 16 of 17
also keeping in mind that this is a commercial transaction, and
the entire burden of interest along with principal value falls
upon the Government, it is necessary in the present case to
award reasonable interest, in order to strike a balance
between the parties. Thus, in these peculiar facts and circum-
stances, we deem it fit, just and appropriate to award simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 8th July 1975, on the
enhanced valuation of shares till the date of decree and in-
terest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till
the date of realisation. The interest shall be paid along with
the amount due towards the enhanced value of the shares,
after adjusting the amount already paid, to the appellants,
within a period of two months from today.” (Emphasis added)
26. From the above discussion, the legal position that is culled out
is that interest is payable as ‘compensation’ upon wrongful denial or loss of
use of money to one entitled to use of said money; and ‘penal interest’ is
payable by wrong doer in making delayed payment to the one so entitled to
use of said money. Further, the grant of interest is: a) at the discretion of
the Court; b) it has to be equitable and fair after striking a balance between
the parties; c) it cannot be punitive; and d) has to be awarded after taking
into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
27. It is my considered view that in the entire facts and
circumstances noted above, the petitioner cannot claim any ‘entitlement’ to
the interest as there was no deliberate delay on part of the respondents.
28. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the
present Writ Petition stands dismissed .
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15687-2024 (O&M) 17 of 17
29. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
14.09.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.16 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document