Withheld retiral benefits attract 8% annual interest until their disbursement.

The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of the Division Bench judgment dated 31 July 2025 in W.P.(C) 13183/2023.

In that judgment, the Court had quashed the retrospective downward refixation of the petitioner’s pay and directed the respondents to pay interest at 8% per annum on the amount withheld from his retiral benefits from 7 July 2023 until payment, within twelve weeks, and to issue a revised Pension Payment Order (“PPO”).

In the contempt proceedings, the respondents relied on a Compliance Affidavit dated 7 May 2026 and produced a revised PPO dated 24 April 2025.

The petitioner stated that he had not received a physical copy of the revised PPO.

The respondents thereafter produced documents showing that payments under the revised PPO were being released to the petitioner and assured the Court that the revised pension would be duly reflected in the PPO in accordance with procedure.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the directions issued in the judgment dated 31 July 2025 concerning payment of interest and revision of the petitioner’s PPO.

2. Whether any further order was required in the contempt petition in view of the respondents’ compliance and undertaking regarding reflection of the revised pension in the PPO.

The underlying judgment applied the principles in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, holding that retrospective downward refixation of pay without prior notice is unsustainable.

It relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih concerning the prohibition against recovery of alleged overpayments in specified circumstances, and High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, which recognises the relevance of a valid undertaking given at the time of opting for a revised pay scale, while distinguishing an undertaking obtained subsequently at the stage of recovery.

The Court also relied on S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana for the principle that an employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits.

In the contempt proceedings, the Court proceeded on the principle that production of compliance material, release of the directed payments, and a binding statement regarding completion of the PPO formalities may sufficiently address the alleged non-compliance.

The Court considered the Compliance Affidavit, the revised PPO dated 24 April 2025, and the documents handed over by the respondents showing that payments were being released in accordance with the revised PPO.

Although the petitioner had not received a physical copy of the revised PPO, the Commandant of the BSF, through counsel, assured the Court that the revised pension would be duly reflected in the PPO as per procedure.

The Court accepted that statement and treated the respondents’ actions and undertaking as sufficient compliance with the earlier directions.

Consequently, no further order was considered necessary in the contempt proceedings.

The respondents’ statement that the revised pension would be duly reflected in the PPO was taken on record, and the documents evidencing release of payments were also taken on record.