Jasvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the retiral benefits including Gratuity, Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, ADA, Bonus/I.R., House Rent and arrears on the basis of new pay scale from 01.01.2006, proficiency step-up, increments and the arrears of enhanced pay scales etc. of the petitioner with immediate effect with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of realization of the same.

¶17

Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator on 28.01.1980 in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sub Division Fazilka. In

¶18

VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶19

CWP-26883-2013 2

¶20

the year 2003, he was implicated in a criminal case bearing FIR No.66 dated 11.04.2003 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was convicted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment dated 23.09.2006, and on the basis of the said conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 13.10.2006, passed by the Sewerage Board. The judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2006 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.806-DB of 2006, which was finally allowed, vide judgment dated 04.02.2009, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was set aside and he was acquitted in the abovesaid criminal case. After acquittal, the petitioner had again approached this Court by filing CWP No.21616 of 2010 impugning the order of dismissal dated 13.10.2006. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 30.05.2012 and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner was reinstated back in service, vide order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.4-Municipal Council, Abohar, as in the interregnum the services of the petitioner along with the scheme under which he was working was transferred to Municipal Council, Abohar for the period of two years i.e. from 13.05.2011 to 13.05.2013. Thereafter, on 13.05.2013, the petitioner was transferred back to his parent department i.e. Sewerage Board. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2013. However, his retiral benefits were not released in time. Hence, the instant petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the VINOD KOTHIYAL pendency of the present petition, though the retiral benefits have been 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

3

¶23

CWP-26883-2013

¶24

released but there is a considerable delay in releasing the said benefits, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of the said benefits. The retiral benefits of the petitioner have been released in the following manner :-

¶25

Sr. No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)	Date of Payment
1.	Gratuity	3,36,690/-	22.03.2014
2.	Leave Encashment	2,24,460/-	22.03.2014
3.	CPF	62,610/-	15.11.2014
4.	Balance Gratuity	5,90,345	02.2020
5.	Balance Leave Encashment	3,10,080/-	02.2020

¶26

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondents No.3 and for respondent No.4, submits that that the delay in releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner is not intentional and purely procedural. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant documents.

¶28

Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.07.2013 and no departmental/criminal proceedings were pending against him at the time of his retirement, therefore, he was entitled for the release of his retiral benefits immediately after his retirement and there was no legal impediment for denying the same. However, some of his retiral benefits have been released in the month of February, 2020 after a delay of more than 06 years from the date of his retirement. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled

¶29

for interest on the delayed payment of his retiral benefits.

¶30

VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

4

¶32

CWP-26883-2013

¶33

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

¶34

under:-

¶35

“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 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”

¶36

8. Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs . State of Haryana and

¶37

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: -

¶38

“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

¶39

VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶40

CWP-26883-2013 5

¶41

belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.”

¶42

In view of the above factual position and settled principles

¶43

of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payments of retiral benefits of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2013 (i.e. after three months from the date of retirement of the petitioner) till the actual date of payment(s), within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

07.07.2026 kothiyal		(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable:	Yes/No

¶45

VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.07.08 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Jasvir Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvir Singh v. State of Punjab & 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

Jatinder Kaur and Others Vs Punjab State Cooperative Bank, Chandigarh and Others

Vipan Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Parshotam Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.