SURINDER NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of thhe Constitutionn of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits vizz. Gratuity, leave encashment to the petitioneer along with interest @18% p.a. from the date same fell due till date of actuaal realization.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitiooner, inter alia, contends that thhe only survivving dispute pertains to the payyment of interest on account of delayed payyment of gratuity and leave encashment while releasing the retiraal benefits. Leearned counsel further submits that, admittedly, the gratuity was paid after a delay of seven and a half years and the leave encashment after a delay of eleeven years. The petitioner retired from service on 31/12/2014 as Inspector Grade-II, however, his retiral duees were not released immediatelly upon his rettirement. The respondents were duty-bound to disburse the same within two months from the date of retireement; however, the petitioner's pensionary benefits were released only after an inordinate and unjustified delay. As such, the delay in releasing all his retiral dues entitles thhe petitioner foor grant of interest on delayed payment in terms of the judgmennt rendered byy a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supdg. Engineeer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343. Learned counsel for thhe petitioner fuurther submits that, at the time of the petitioner's retirement, no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against him, nor had any charge-sheeet been issued. In fact the charge sheet has been issued after thhe retirement of petitioner i.e. on 28.12.20177 with regard to the misconducct took place in the year 2009 and 2012-20013, which is forbidden in laww. Learned coounsel relied on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPP-23151-20255, Vasdev Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 11/8/2025 to support his case.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that thhe retiral dues have already been paid to the peetitioner. However he is unable to dispute thatt there has been an inordinate delay in the release of the retiraal dues and that the case of the petitioner stands squarely covered by thhe judgment passed in A.S. Randhawa (suppra) and Vasdev Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents is alsso not able to controvert the facct that the pettitioner stands retired on 31/12/2014 and the charge-sheet waas issued on 288.12.2017 i.e. after retirement of the petitioner.