Head Constable’s Widow To Get 7% Interest And ₹25,000 Costs After Gratuity Was Delayed Over Seven Years: P&H HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on gratuity paid more than seven years after it was sanctioned, where the respondents provided no plausible justification for the delay.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at 7% per annum on the delayed gratuity from 13 April 2013—two months after the husband’s death—until the date of payment, within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

It also directed

The Court also awarded the petitioner ₹25,000 in costs, payable by the respondent-department.

01Facts

The petitioner’s husband, a Punjab Police Head Constable, died in harness on 13 February 2013.

pp. 1–3

No departmental or criminal proceedings were pending against him.

pp. 1–3

Although gratuity of ₹6,80,830 was sanctioned in June 2013, it was paid only in August 2020, without interest.

pp. 1–3

After the petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Police on 1 December 2020, she challenged that decision under Articles 226/227, seeking interest on the delayed payment.

pp. 1–3

The State submitted that the delay was procedural and unintentional.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on gratuity paid more than seven years after it was sanctioned, where the respondents provided no plausible justification for the delay.

pp. 4–5

ii.2. If so, what rate of interest and consequential relief should be awarded.

p. 6

03Law Applied

In *A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab*, 1997(3) S.C.T. 468, the Full Bench held that where retirement benefits are delayed without justification, the employee is entitled to interest as compensation for being denied the timely use of money due; normally, disbursement should not exceed two months from the relevant date.

pp. 4–5

In *J.S. Cheema v. State of Haryana*, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court explained that interest compensates for the use of another person’s money, and may be payable even without State negligence where money rightfully belonging to the claimant was retained by the State.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The gratuity had been sanctioned in 2013, but remained unpaid until August 2020.

pp. 4–5

The respondents neither identified a legal impediment to payment nor offered a plausible explanation for the delay, and appeared to shift responsibility among themselves.

pp. 4–5

Applying *A.S. Randhawa* and *J.S. Cheema*, the Court held that the prolonged, unjustified retention of the petitioner’s gratuity entitled her to interest.

pp. 4–5

Given the delay and the petitioner’s need to pursue repeated proceedings to obtain her lawful dues, the Court also considered an award of costs appropriate.

p. 6