[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd ... on 10 December, 2025
CWP-30048-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
254
CWP-30048-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.12.2025
Surinder Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate
and Mr. Rajkaran Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Parul, Advocate
for Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
CM-2257-CWP-2025
Prayer in the instant application filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of CPC is for placing on
record the documents as Annexure P-9 to P-11, respectively.
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. The
Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.
CM-2258-CWP-2025
Prayer in this application filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 151 of CPC is for preponing the
date fixed in the main petition.
Since the main petition is listed for hearing today itself, the
instant application is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
1 of 4
CWP-30048-2024 (O&M)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents for release of remaining retiral
dues of the petitioner i.e. around Rs.15.00 lacs on account of leave
encashment and Rs.25,000/- security along with interest @ 12% per
annum from 31.05.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the petitioner retired on 31.05.2024 and on the eve of his retirement,
there was no pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings against him.
After filing of the present writ petition, leave encashment of the
petitioner was credited in his bank account, however, lien was created
by respondent/Bank on the direction of respondent No.2 and thus, the
complete retiral dues of the petitioner have not been paid. She further
contends that the gratuity of the petitioner was released in the month of
August, 2024 and the retiral dues of the petitioner have been withheld in
violation of the Instructions dated 16.12.2019, issued by respondent
No.1, which provide that the retiral dues of a retired employee of the
Bank may be withheld only when the employee himself has availed a
loan facility, whereas in the present case, the petitioner has merely stood
as a guarantor for one Vijay.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand,
submits that respondent No.1 has transferred the leave encashment to
petitioner's bank account through respondent No.2. Further, respondent
2 of 4
No.2 has directed to release the security amount of Rs.25,000/- and no
lien has been marked by respondent No.1 on any bank account of the
petitioner. He further submits that the delay in releasing the retiral dues
of the petitioner has occurred due to audit only and there is no mala fide
on the part of the respondents to harass the petitioner by delaying the
payment intentionally.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not in a position to
offer any explanation on the basis of which the statutory rules and
regulations, the lien is created on the leave encashment of the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
6. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment rendered
by a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer
(Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 wherein it was opined
that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement
must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two
months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to
claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi,
the following was held:
"9. 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
3 of 4
(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. Again, as to
what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view,
be generally 12% unless the circumstances of a particular
case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may
extend to even 18%."(emphasis added)
7. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs.
State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M.
Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429.
8. In the view of the above discussions, the present petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to release the payment of interest
@ 6% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed retiral dues, to be
calculated after the expiry of two months from the date of his retirement
till its actual realization. The aforesaid payment shall be made to the
petitioner within a period of 03 weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
9. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
10.12.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
