Allowed

Ashok Virdi and Others v. Punjab Urban Development Authority

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2026CWP/284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divisional Engineers of PUDA were granted their entitled senior pay scale after a delay of about a decade. The Court held that administrative delay cannot justify withholding compensation and directed payment of interest at 7% per annum on the delayed arrears from the due date until actual payment.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 7% p.a. on delayed arrears of senior scale from due date to actual payment, to be paid within three months.

Ashok Virdi and Others Vs Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-284-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026

Ashok Virdi & others

...Petitioners

Versus

Punjab Urba n Development Authority, Moh a li ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

¶10

Present: Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for t h e petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advo c ate, with Ms. Ridhi Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners unde r

¶14

Articles 226 of the Constitution of India see k ing following reliefs:

¶15

(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashin g the impugned order dat e d 23.06.2022 (P-8) vide whic h while granting the Seni o r Scale of Rs.37400-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) t o the petitioners (Divisiona l Engineers) from the dat e of completion of 14 years o f regular service on the p ost including service as SD E after a delay of more than 10 years (approx.), th e respondent has refused to grant 12% interest on th e arrears accruing to the p e titioners on account of grant o f Senior Scale of Rs.3740 0 -67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) t o the petitioners (Division a l Engineers) from the date o f completion of 14 years of regular service on the pos t including service as S D E from the date the actua l payment of Senior Scale became due to the petitioner s

¶16

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶18

(2)

¶19

and till actual payment o f the arrears of Senior Scale wa s made to the petitioners.

¶20

(ii) That a further writ in th e nature of mandamus be issue d directing the respondent t o grant 12% interest per annu m on the delayed payme n t of arrears accruing to th e petitioners on account of grant of Senior Scale o f Rs.37400-67000 + 86 0 0 (Grade Pay) (Divisiona l Engineers) from the dat e of completion of 14 years o f regular service on the p ost including service as SD E from the date the actual p ayment of Senior Scale becam e due to the petitioners t i ll actual payment of the sai d arrears of Senior Scale was made to the petitioners.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitio n ers submits that the petitioner s were initial l y appointed as Junior Engi n eers in the Punjab Housin g Development Board between the years 197 7 to 1992. Subsequently, upo n merger of t h e Punjab Housing Developme n t Board with the Punjab Urba n Development Authority, the services of the p etitioners came to be governe d by the respondent-Authority. Thereafter, t h e petitioners were promoted t o the post of S ub Divisional Engineers betw e en the years 1998 to 2002 an d subsequentl y , to the post of Divisional Engi n eers between the years 2008 t o 2014 in the p ay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + GP Rs.7600. A detailed char t depicting th e dates of appointment and subs e quent promotions upto the pos t of Divisiona l Engineers has been annexed as Annexure P-1.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petit i oners further submits that th e services of t h e petitioners are governed by t he ‘Punjab Urban Planning an d Development Authority (Employees S ervice) Regulations, 1999’ . Regulation 2 3 thereof, dealing with ‘Pay and Allowances’, provides a s under:

¶23

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶25

(3)

¶26

23. Pay and Allowances:

¶27

(1) Every employee shall be entitle d to such scales of pay includin g special pay as may be sanction e d by the Authority from time t o time but not less than PWD f or technical categories and i n Punjab Civil Secretariat in c ase of Ministerial and othe r categories. The scales of pay a n d special pay at present in forc e in respect of the posts and servi c es are given in Schedule I.

¶28

(2) N o employee while in service of the Authority shall accep t without the permission of the A ppointing Authority any othe r employment or pay or hono r arium or fee from any othe r source.

¶29

SCHEDU L E – I

¶30

CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS –I (TECHNICAL)

¶31

Sr.	Name of Post	Numb er	Scale of Post in Rupees
N o.		of Pos ts
ENGI	NEERS WING
X	X	X	X
5.	Divisional Engineer (Civil)	16	(i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE)
6.	Divisional Engineer (Public Health)	8	(i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE)
7.	Divisional Engineer (Electrical)	4	(i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE)
8.	Divisional Landscape Officer	1	(i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as Sub Divisional Landscape Officer)

¶32

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶33

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶34

(4)

¶35

SCHEDULE – I

¶36

C LASSIFICATION OF POSTS C LASS – II (TECHNICAL)

¶37

N Sr. o.	Name of Post	Numb of Pos er ts	Scale of Post in Rupees
ENGI	NEERS WING
1.	Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil)	38	(i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale)
2.	Sub Divisional Engineer (Public Health)	23	(i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale)
3.	Sub Divisional Engineer (Mechanical)	1	(i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale)
4.	Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical)	9	(i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale)

¶38

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶39

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶40

(5)

¶41

(iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular servic e in the entry scale)

¶42

He further submits that after re v ision of pay scales in 2009, al l

¶43

the Divisional Engineers of all the depart m ents of Government of Punja b upon compl e tion of 14 years of regular servi c e, became entitled to the highe r pay scale o f Rs.14300-18150 (revised to R s.37400-67000 + GP Rs.8600 ) w.e.f. 01.01. 2 006. However, despite such e ntitlement, the said benefit wa s extended to t he petitioners only after a lapse of 10 years from the respectiv e dates on w h ich they became eligible. A chart to this effect has bee n furnished in p ara 23 of the petition, which re a ds as under:

¶44

*Pet.* *No.*	*Name of the* *petitioner*	*Date* on *which* *Senior Scale* *became due*	*Date* of *placement in* *the* *Senior* *Scale*	*Actual Date* on *which* *arrear* of *Senior Scale* *was granted*
1.	AshokVirdi	20.08.2012	21.09.2022	31.10.2022
2.	Bhupinder Kumar Chawla	22.06.2015	26.08.2022	29.11.2022
3.	Harinder Singh Pannu	20.08.2012	20.07.2022	14.10.2022
4.	Vasudev Anand	20.08.2012	29.08.2022	21.11.2022
5.	Jagmohan Singh Khosa	28.04.2012	20.07.2022	15.09.2022

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitio n ers further submits that despit e

¶46

repeated rep r esentations and the advice rece i ved by the respondent from th e PWD (B&R ) Department, Punjab, the petiti o ners were not granted the senio r scale of Rs. 3 7400-67000 + GP 8600 upon c o mpletion of 14 years of regula r service on t h e post of Divisional Engineer, inclusive of the service rendere d on the pos t of SDE, though they wer e duly entitled to the same . Consequentl y , the petitioners served a l egal notice dated 15.02.201 8

¶47

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶48

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶49

(6)

¶50

(Annexure P-6) upon the respondent, which evoked no response. Therefore , feeling aggr i eved by the aforesaid action o f the respondent, the petitioner s approached t his Court by filing CWP-160 0 7-2018 titled ‘Ashok Virdi & others Vs. P U DA, Mohali’, which was disp o sed of by this Court vide orde r dated 25.03 . 2022 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondent t o consider an d decide the legal notice dated 15.02.2018, within a period of 3 months fro m the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

It is further submitted that on e Jaljinder Singh, SDE, who i s junior to the petitioners, has already been gr a nted the said benefit much prio r to the petiti o ners. The particulars of the ju n ior have been stated in para 1 8 of the petiti o n and the said fact has not been denied in the written statement . It is, thus, su b mitted that since there has bee n an inordinate delay of 10 year s in releasing t he said monetary benefit due t o the petitioners, therefore, the y are entitled f or the grant of interest on the d elayed payment. In support o f the said con t ention, reliance has been plac e d upon Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & others, 2007 (3) SCC 545 ; D.D.Tewari (D) through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others, 2014 (8) SCC 894 ; Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2019 (2) SCT 116 an d J.S.Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355 . 7. Learned senior counsel representing the respondent, whil e referring to the averments made in the s h ort reply filed by way of a n affidavit of Mr. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, A dditional Chief Administrato r (HQ), Punj a b Urban Planning and Devel o pment Authority, SAS Nagar , submits that in the year 2013, the PUDA has sought clarification from th e administrati v e departments i.e. Chief En g ineer, PWD (B&R), Punjab ; VIMAL KUMAR Department of Housing & Urban Deve l opment, Punjab and Financ e 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶52

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶53

(7)

¶54

Department, Punjab regarding grant of the a foresaid benefit. On receipt o f said clarific a tion, which was finally given b y the said Department/s in th e year 2022, t h e petitioners were granted the s aid benefit. She, thus, submit s that there w as no intentional delay on the part of the respondent, as th e matter rema i ned pending with the administr a tive department/s. It is furthe r submitted th a t the petitioners themselves a p proached this Court in the yea r 2018, i.e., b y way of CWP-16007-2018, af t er serving the legal notice and , therefore, th e y are not entitled to claim inter e st for the earlier period. 8. I have heard learned counsel f o r the parties and have peruse d the record.

¶55

Admittedly, entitlement of the petitioners to the grant of pa y scale of Rs. 3 7400-67000 + GP 8600 upon c o mpletion of 14 years of regula r service is n o t in dispute, as the responde n t has itself extended the sai d benefit to th e petitioners, as is clear from t h e above reproduced chart. It i s also not in d i spute that the petitioners were e n titled for the said benefit as pe r Punjab Urb a n Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service ) Regulations, 1999 governing the services o f the petitioners. However, th e said benefit was not granted to the petit i oners immediately when the y became enti t led for the same as per afor e said Regulations. Rather, th e record revea l s that certain employees junior to the petitioners were extende d the said ben e fit earlier, whereas the petitione r s were denied the same withou t any justifiab l e reason.

¶56

The explanation advanced by the respondent that the matte r remained pe n ding on account of inter-depar t mental correspondence and th e need for ad m inistrative clarification, cann o t furnish a legally sustainabl e VIMAL KUMAR justification for depriving the petitioners o f compensation for the delaye d 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶57

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶58

(8)

¶59

release of t heir monetary dues. It is a settled principle of servic e jurisprudenc e that an employee cannot be m a de to suffer on account of inter - departmenta l correspondence or administ r ative inefficiency, procedura l delays or la p ses. The monetary benefits admittedly became due to th e petitioners o n the dates of their respectiv e eligibility and the responden t continued to utilize the said amount for a considerable period of 7 to 1 0 years. Onc e the amount due has admitte d ly been released belatedly, th e petitioners b e came entitled to interest on th e delayed payment. Hon’ble th e Supreme Co u rt in Alok Shanker Pandey’s c a se (supra) has held as under:

¶60

“8. It may be mentioned th a t there is misconception abou t interest. Interest is not a penal t y or punishment at all, but it i s the normal accretion on capita l . For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years a go, but he offers that amount t o him today, then he has pocket e d the interest on the principa l amount. Had A paid that amo u nt to B 10 years ago, B woul d have invested that amount s o mewhere and earned interes t thereon, but instead of that A h a s kept that amount with himsel f and earned interest on it for thi s period. Hence equity demand s that A should not only pay bac k the principal amount but als o the interest thereon to B. ”

¶61

As per the judgment of a Coord i nate Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema’s c ase (supra) , where an amo u nt has been retained by th e department w ithout any valid justificatio n for which an employee wa s entitled for, the same would carry interest. The relevant paragraph of th e judgment re a ds as under:

¶62

“5. xx xx xx

¶63

The jurisprudential basis for g rant of interest is the fact tha t one person's money has been u sed by somebody else. It is i n that sense rent for the usa g e of money. If the user i s

¶64

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶65

CWP-284-2023 (O&M)

¶66

(9)

¶67

compounded by any negligenc e on the part of the person wit h whom the money is lying, it m a y result in higher rate becaus e then it can also include the co m ponent of damages (in the for m of interest). In the circumstanc e s, even if there is no negligenc e on the part of the State it can n ot be denied that money whic h rightly belonged to the petition e r was in the custody of the Stat e and was being used by it.”

¶68

In view of the above, the pr e sent petition is allowed. Th e respondent- P UDA is directed to grant intere s t to the petitioners at the rate o f 7% p.a. on t h e delayed payment of the arre a rs accrued to the petitioners o n account of g rant of senior scale i.e. Rs.37 4 00-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) , from the dat e the said amount became due t o each of the petitioners till th e date of actu a l payment/s. The aforesaid exe r cise shall be completed within a period of th r ee months from the date of r e ceipt of certified copy of thi s order.

¶69

(NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasone d : Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶70

VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Ashok Virdi and Others v. Punjab Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Virdi and Others v. Punjab Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Andors

Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Harjeet Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Lt. Patiala

Ravinder Kumar Singal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Devinder Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.