Dismissed¶39

(O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Others v. Guran Ditta

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Apr 2026RSA/1532/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M); Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and anr. v. Guran Ditta; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Sudeepti Sharma, J.; reserved 29.04.2026, pronounced 30.04.2026; delayed payment of retiral benefits - pension, gratuity, leave encashment; premature retirement 03.12.1990; payments made 11.01.1995 and 13.03.1995; delay of more than 4 years; interest @ 18% per annum; State of Haryana v. Satwant Singh, 2026 NCPHHC 30996 relied on; concurrent findings upheld; second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgments and decrees dated 22.05.1997 and 02.11.1999 in favour of the respondent were upheld and the regular second appeal was dismissed. ¶39

(O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Others Vs Guran Ditta — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgments and decrees dated 22.05.1997 and 02.11.1999 in favour of the respondent were upheld and the regular second appeal was dismissed.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgments and decrees of the courts below (decreeing the respondent's suit for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits and dismissing the appellants' appeal) suffered from infirmity such that the regular second appeal should be allowed and the judgments and decrees dated 22.05.1997 and 02.11.1999 set aside. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

There is admittedly a delay of more than 04 years in payment of the respondent's retiral benefits: leave encashment dues were paid on 11.01.1995 and pension and gratuity on 13.03.1995, and the respondent was forced to move several applications and visit the office for release of pension and gratuity, causing hardship.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

No infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat and the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 of the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, decreeing the respondent's suit for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits; both were upheld, in view of the admitted delay and this Court's precedent in State of Haryana v. Satwant Singh (2026 NCPHHC 30996).

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal by Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat and judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 of the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the suit of Guran Ditta, a retired Lorry Driver, for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits was decreed. After premature retirement on 03.12.1990, leave encashment of Rs.22,880/- was paid through cheque dated 11.01.1995 and arrears of pension and gratuity of Rs.1,03,990/- on 13.03.1995 - an admitted delay of more than four years, during which the respondent had to move several applications and visit the office. Relying on State of Haryana v. Satwant Singh, 2026 NCPHHC 30996 (holding that an employee is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum for delayed payment of retiral benefits), the High Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees, upheld them and dismissed the appeal. Pending applications disposed of. (Sudeepti Sharma, J.)

¶1

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M)

¶5

Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and anr.

...Appellants

Versus

Guran Ditta

...Respondent

Reserved on: 29.04.2026 Pronounced on: 30.04.2026 Uploaded on: 04.05.2026

¶11

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Whether full judgment is pronounced?

¶12

NO YES

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶14

Present: Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶16

¶17

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

¶18

The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat, as well as judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby, civil suit filed by respondent was decreed in his favour and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed.

¶19

GAURAV ARORA 2026.05.04 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

¶23

Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that respondent was working with the appellants-department as Lorry Driver and had retired at the time of filing of civil suit. There was some defect in his eye for which he applied for earned leave which was duly sanctioned from 11.04.1989 to 15.08.1989 and after undergoing eye operation, he became fit to join the duty and when he went to office to resume charge, he was not allowed and was not also paid salary for that period. Because of which he was constrained to file civil suit which was filed on 23.12.1989 and the same was decided on 16.05.1994. In the meanwhile, the respondent was prematurely retired from the post of lorry driver on 03.12.1990 and was paid Rs.1,03,990/- as arrears of pension and gratuity on 13.03.1995. He was also paid a sum of Rs.22,880/- as leave encashment for unutilized period of 11.03.1995 through cheque dated 11.01.1995 but he was not paid retiral benefits for which he was legally entitled to. Since there was inordinate delay of 4 years, 03 months and 2 days in payment of pension, gratuity & leave encashment, therefore, the respondent filed civil suit seeking interest on delayed payment. 3. The civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat and the appeal filed by the appellants against the same was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts did not appreciate the evidence on record before decreeing the civil suit filed

¶25

GAURAV ARORA 2026.05.04 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

by respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat as well as judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat be set aside.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsels for respondent contends that both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record while decreeing the civil suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance.

¶31

ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD

¶32

A perusal of the record shows that admittedly, the respondent was paid leave encashment dues on 11.01.1995 and 13.03.1995 and his pension and gratuity were paid on 13.03.1995. A perusal of the record further shows that retiral benefits were not released even after expiry of 4 years. The respondent was forced to move several applications and to visit the office for release of pension and gratuity which caused hardship to the respondent. Therefore, admittedly there is delay of more than 04 years in payment of retiral benefits

¶33

Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of this Court in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Satwant Singh and anr, 2026 NCPHHC 30996 wherein this Court held that the employee is entitled to

¶34

GAURAV ARORA 2026.05.04 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

-4-

¶36

RSA-1532-2000 (O&M)

¶37

interest @ 18% per annum for delayed payment of retiral benefits to the respondent.

¶38

In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat, as well as judgment and decree dated 02.11.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat and the same are upheld.

¶39

Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is dismissed .

¶40

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

¶41

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶42

30.04.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE

¶43

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶44

GAURAV ARORA 2026.05.04 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Others v. Guran Ditta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula and Others v. Guran Ditta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmir Singh and Others Vs Sadhu Ram and Others

Rajender Kumar and Others Vs Vineet Kumar Garg, Director Pccf and Another

Barinder Kaur Vs Abhimanyu Rana, IPS & Others

Parshant Kumar Vs Devendra Sharma , E.O Hsvp and Another

Annapurna Tiwari and Anr. Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Suman Lata and Ors. Vs Satyawan and Ors.