S Sarwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

The present petition has been f iled under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India praying for issuance o f a writ, order or directions in t h e nature of c e rtiorari to quash the orders d a ted 08.01.2014 (Annexure P-1 1 ) passed by t he respondents, in terms of the orders passed by this Hon’b l e Court on 2 6.09.2013 in CWP-21479-201 3 , vide which the claim of t h e petitioner o n the aspect that ad hoc servic e rendered by him being count e d for ACP a n d grant of higher pay-scale w a s rejected. Further, a prayer h a s been made for issuance of a writ in the n a ture of mandamus directing t h e respondent s to grant 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd AC P on completion of 30 years o f service and the interest on the delayed pay m ent by almost seven months, f o r

¶14

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

2

¶16

CWP-2252 6 -2014

¶17

which dura t ion pensionary benefits were n o t released on the pretext that n o dues certifi c ate was not received.

¶18

At this stage, learned coun s el for the petitioner wishes t o confine his prayer to the extent of grant of interest on account of delay i n releasing t h e retiral dues in terms of the ju d gment rendered by a Full Ben c h of this Cou r t in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punja b 1998 (1) SCT 343 .

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that t h e petitioner r e tired from the services on 31. 0 3.2007 and his retiral dues we r e not release d immediately upon retirement d ue to pending receipt of ‘no du e s certificate’. The pensionary benefits accru e d to the petitioner were releas e d to him onl y in the month of October, 2007. As such, the petitioner is entitl e d to interest on account of the delayed pa y ment of his retiral dues by fi v e months.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent( s ) submits th a t the retiral dues have alrea d y been paid to the petitione r . However, t hey could not controvert the fa ct that the petitioner retired o n 31.03.2007 and retiral dues were release d only in the month of Octobe r , 2007.

¶21

5. Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for t h e parties and after perusing the record with t heir able assistance, it transpir e s that the pe t itioner retired on 31.03.2007. T he respondents are obligated t o release his all retiral dues within two mo n ths of his retirement. Howeve r , pensionary benefits released only in Oct o ber, 2007. As such, his case i s

¶22

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

3

¶24

CWP-2252 6 -2014

¶25

n squarely covered by the judgment rendere d by a Full Bench of this Court i A.S. Randhawa (supra) wherein it was op i ned that disbursement of pensi o n and other b enefits payable at retirement m ust be done in a timely manne r . Any delay over a period of two months q ua the said disbursement wou l d entitle the r e tired employee to claim interes t on the amount due. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction t o respondents No.2 to 5 to pa y interest at the rate of 6% p e r annum on t he amount disbursed in lieu o f all admissible retiral dues . T h e same shall b e calculated from two months after his retirement till its actu a l realization. The respondent(s)/competent authority is directed to do t h e needful wit h in 03 months of receipt of a ce r tified copy of this order. 7. Pending miscellaneous appl i cation(s), if any, also stan d s disposed o f .

¶26

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶27

October 27, 2025 P.C

¶28

Whether speaking/reaso n ed. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶29

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.31 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

S Sarwan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Sarwan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jai Kishan Mittal Vs Hafed and Another

Om Prakash Sihag Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sham Lal through His Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Garg Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kushla Devi Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others