Charanjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
216
CWP-9314-2022
Date of decision : 11.11.2026
Charanjit Kaur ..…Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
.
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, A.A.G., Punjab

NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.12.2020 (Annexure P-9),
passed by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant
of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity has been rejected. Further
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
grant interest @ 24% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed
payment of gratuity.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Late Sh. Jagsir Singh,
was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 13.03.1989 and
was subsequently, promoted to the post of Head Constable.
Unfortunately, he died in harness on 13.02.2013, leaving behind the
petitioner (his widow) and three minor children (two sons and a
daughter). After his demise, the respondent-department released the
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-9314-2022 2
leave encashment and certain other death-cum-retiral benefits payable to
the petitioner. However, the amount of gratuity was not released. Upon
repeated requests and representations made by the petitioner, respondent
No.4, vide order dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure P-1), directed respondents
No.3 and 5 to release an amount of Rs.6,80,830/- towards gratuity in
favour of the petitioner. The family pension was also sanctioned in her
favour. However, despite the aforesaid order and repeated requests and
representations submitted by the petitioner, the gratuity amount was not
released for a considerable period. Eventually, in August, 2020, the
respondent-department released the gratuity amount of Rs.6,80,830/- in
favour of the petitioner. However, no interest was paid on account of the
inordinate delay in disbursement of the said amount. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.07.2020
(Annexure P-6) to the respondent-department, seeking grant of interest
@ 24% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity. However, no
action was taken thereupon. Consequently, the petitioner approached
this Court by way of filing CWP No.15170 of 2020, titled as ‘Charanjit
Kaur v. State of Punjab and others’ , seeking issuance of appropriate
directions to the respondents for grant of interest @ 24% per annum on
the delayed payment of gratuity. The said writ petition was disposed of
by this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure P-8), directing the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure P-6), in
accordance with law, by passing a speaking order, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In
compliance thereof, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-9314-2022 3
01.12.2020 (Annexure P-9), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
grant of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Hence, the present
petition .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's husband died in harness on 13.02.2013, whereas the gratuity
amount of Rs.6,80,830/- was released in favour of the petitioner only in
August, 2020, i.e. after an inordinate delay of more than seven years. He
further submits that the aforesaid amount was released without any
interest for the period of delay. He further submits that since there is a
considerable delay in releasing the gratuity amount to the petitioner,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the same.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the delay in
releasing the gratuity amount to the petitioner is not intentional and
purely procedural, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any
interest.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
6. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner, who was serving
as a Head Constable in the Punjab Police, died in harness on
13.02.2013. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of his death, no
departmental or criminal proceedings were pending against him. Thus,
the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, was entitled
to receive all the admissible death-cum-retiral benefits immediately
upon his death and there was no legal impediment for denying the same.
Although the other death-cum-retiral benefits were duly released in
favour of the petitioner, however, the gratuity amount of Rs.6,80,830/-,
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-9314-2022 4
which had already been sanctioned in her favour, vide letter dated
18.06.2013 (Annexure P-2), was released only in August, 2020, i.e. after
an inordinate delay of more than seven years. Significantly, no reason
whatsoever has been forthcoming from the respondents to justify such
an inordinate delay. Even in the separate replies filed on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, no plausible explanation
has been furnished for withholding the gratuity amount for such a
prolonged period. Rather, the respondents appear to be shifting the
responsibility onto one another. Since there is a considerable delay in
releasing the gratuity amount to the petitioner, therefore, she is entitled
for interest on the delayed payment of the said benefit.
7. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate
delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, employee will
be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as
under:-
“8. 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 would not exceed two months
from 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
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-9314-2022 5
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. xx xx xx xx”
8. Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs . State of Haryana and
others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355 , this Court has held that an employee
will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been retained by
the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant paragraph
of the said judgment is as under: -
“5. xx xx xx xx The jurisprudential basis for grant of
interest is the fact that one person's money has been used
by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of
money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the
part of the person with whom the money is laying it may
result in higher rate because then it can also include the
component of damages (in the form of interest). In the
circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of
the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly
belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State
and was being used by it.”
9. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment of
gratuity to the petitioner, w.e.f. 13.04.2013 (i.e. after two months from
the date of death of husband of the petitioner) till the actual date of
payment, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
10. It is further observed that the petitioner has been
constrained to approach this Court time and again to seek release of
interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, despite the same being her
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-9314-2022 6
legitimate entitlement. The petitioner ought not to have been compelled
to undertake repeated legal proceedings to secure her lawful dues.
Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to award costs of
Rs.25,000/- in favour of the petitioner, to be paid by the respondent-
department, in addition to the aforesaid interest on the delayed payment
of gratuity.
11.11.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
VINOD KOTHIYAL
2026.11.13 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document