Dismissed¶10

State of Haryana v. Jagroshan

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jan 2026FAO/1198/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO-1198-1995; appeal against Commissioner's award dismissed; quantum of compensation, interest and penalty; statutory simple interest at 12% per annum on arrears; higher interest linked to scheduled bank lending rates specified by Central Government; penalty up to 50% of arrears for unjustified delay subject to show-cause; interest and penalty payable to employee or dependant; Second Schedule, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; Pankaj Jain; decided January 22, 2026; no merit in appeal.

What did the court decide?

Keeping in view the mandate of the statute, the Court found no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation, interest and penalty as ordered by the Commissioner. ¶9

State of Haryana Vs Jagroshan — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

DEEPAK KUMAR

¶2

2026.01.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶3

FAO-1198-1995

¶4

-2-

¶5

(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher, rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and

¶6

(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.

¶7

Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, “scheduled bank” means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

¶8

[(3A) The interest and the penalty payable under subsection (3) shall be paid to the [employee] or his dependant, as the case may be.]

¶9

Keeping in view the mandate of statute, this Court finds no reason to interefere in the quantum of compensation, interest and penalty as ordered by the Commissioner.

¶10

Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.

¶11

January 22, 2026	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr	Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶12

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.23 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana v. Jagroshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Jagroshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjit Singh Chadha @ Harjeet Singh Chadha Vs Harbans Kaur and Ors.

Jagjit Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Labh Kaur and Others Vs Vineet Khurana and Others

M/S Shree Durga (Brick) Bhatta Company and Anr. Vs Asha Devi and Ors.

Jamshida and Others Vs Manoj Hora and Another

Arpit Jain and Ors. Vs Sanjiv Kumar Jain and Anr.