Disposed¶25

Kushla Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2025CWP/23760/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interest on delayed retiral dues; death in harness; two-month disbursement rule; 6% per annum interest from two months after death till realization; A.S. Randhawa Full Bench (1998 (1) SCT 343) applied; Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL/Nigam) respondent; prior litigation CWP-12581-2020 allowed 27.02.2023; balance Rs. 2,22,236/- paid 28.05.2024; 3rd ACP; pensionary/retiral benefits; Punjab & Haryana High Court; CWP-23760-2023; decided 27.10.2025; single judge Harpreet Singh Brar.

What did the court decide?

Payment of 6% interest per annum on the amount disbursed in lieu of all admissible retiral dues of the petitioner's deceased husband, calculated from two months after his death (13.03.2017) till actual realization; compliance directed within 03 months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶25

Kushla Devi Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of delay in releasing the retiral dues of her deceased husband, and at what rate. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The Court found that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 13.03.2017 and the respondents were obligated to release all his retiral dues within two months; however, part of the retiral dues were released only in January 2018 and the remaining amount on 28.05.2024, making the case squarely covered by the Full Bench ruling in A.S. Randhawa (supra) that delay beyond two months in disbursement entitles the retiree/claimant to interest on the amount due.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to pay 6% interest per annum on the amount disbursed in lieu of all admissible retiral dues.

¶25

Key takeaways

The interest shall be calculated from two months after the death of the petitioner's husband till its actual realization, and the respondents/competent authority is directed to do the needful within 03 months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar, J., oral) disposed of CWP-23760-2023 (Kushla Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others) with a direction to pay 6% per annum interest on the delayed retiral dues of the petitioner's husband, Om Parkash, who died in harness on 13.03.2017. Part of the dues was released in January 2018; the balance of Rs. 2,22,236/- was paid only on 28.05.2024, following allowance of the petitioner's earlier CWP-12581-2020 by a coordinate Bench on 27.02.2023. Applying the Full Bench ruling in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343 — retiral benefits must be disbursed timely and any delay beyond two months entitles the claimant to interest — the Court held the case squarely covered and directed interest calculated from two months after death till actual realization, to be paid within three months. Counsel had confined the prayer to interest alone; the original demands for counting daily-wage service (05.02.1981 to 04.10.1992) as qualifying service and for re-fixation of pension with 18% interest were neither pressed nor decided.

¶1

¶2

CWP-2376 0 -2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

206 C W P-23760-2023 D a te of Decision: October 27, 2025

Kushla De v i

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and o t hers ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

¶10

Present : Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advoca t e for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate f o r the respondents.

¶12

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

¶13

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 ertiorari for quashing the i m pugned order dated 16.06.20 2 3 (Annexure P -9) being illegal and arbitrary a nd further for issuance of a w r it in the natu r e of mandamus directing the r e spondent authorities to count t h e r daily wage service of Om Parkash (since d e ceased) husband of the petition e from 05.0 2 .1981 to 04.10.1992 towards the total length of service a s qualifying s ervice for the purpose of pens i onary/retiral benefits along wi t h arrears. F u rther directing the responde n ts to re-fix the pension a n d pensionary benefits as per his entitlement w ith arrears thereof together wi t h interest @ 1 8% per annum.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitio n er inter alia contends that

¶15

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

CWP-2376 0 -2023

¶18

he confine s his prayer only to the extent o f entitlement of the petitioner f o r interest on account of delay in releasing t he retiral dues. Learned couns e l further sub m its that the husband of the peti t ioner expired on 13.03.2017 a n d a part of t h e pensionary benefits were re l eased in the month of Januar y , 2018. The 3 rd ACP and other benefits were not granted by the respondent(s ) - Nigam. Fe e ling aggrieved, the petitioner fil e d CWP-12581-2020, which w a s allowed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.02.2023 and the remaini n g admissible benefits were paid on 28.05. 2 024. As such, the petitioner i s entitled to i nterest on the delayed payme n t in releasing retiral dues of h e r deceased h usband and her case is squ a rely covered by the judgme n t rendered b y a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Enginee r (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 34 3 .

¶19

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents could n o t controvert t he fact that the husband of peti t ioner expired on 13.03.2017 a n d initially th e part payment was paid in the month of January, 2018 and t h e remaining a mount of Rs.2,22,236/- was rel e ased only on 28.05.2024.

¶20

4. Having heard the submissions 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 h u sband of petitioner died in h arness on 13.03.2017 and t h e respondent s were obligated to release all h i s retiral dues within two month s . However, p art of retiral dues were rele a sed only in January, 2018 a n d remaining a mount was released on 28.05.2 0 24. The present case is square l y covered by the judgment rendered by a F ull Bench of this Court in A.S . Randhawa (supra) wherein it was opined t hat disbursement of pension a n d

¶21

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

CWP-2376 0 -2023

¶24

other bene f its payable at retirement must b e done in a timely manner. A n y delay over a period of two months, qua th e said disbursement would entit l e the retired e mployee to claim interest on th e amount due.

¶25

5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction t o the respondents/competent a u thority to pay 6% interest p e r annum on t he amount disbursed in lieu o f all admissible retiral dues . T h e same shall be calculated from two mont h s after the death of husband o f petitioner t i ll its actual realization. The res p ondent(s)/competent authority i s directed to do the needful within 03 months of receipt of a certified copy o f this order.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous appl i cation(s), if any, also stan d s disposed o f .

¶27

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶28

October 27, 2025 P.C

¶29

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

¶30

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.29 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kushla Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushla Devi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others

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

S Sarwan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.