[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Pal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 19 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204+110
CWP-93-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision :19.12.2025
Surinder Pal Kaur .....Petitioner
V/S
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Ms. Tavesha Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate for the petitioner
as Legal Aid Counsel.
Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus,
directing the respondents to grant pension w.e.f. 01.06.2022 to
15.07.2022 and family pension w.e.f. 16.07.2022 till date along with
arrears and interest @ 12% per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition,
are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Sh. Gurdeep Singh joined
the service on 21.11.1974 with the Department of Rural Development
and Panchayat, Punjab and after serving the respondent-Department for
more than 36 years, he superannuated as Panchayat Secretary on
31.08.2011. Thereafter, he was receiving pension. Unfortunately, he
died on 15.07.2022 and the petitioner, being his widow, was entitled for
family pension. However, despite submitting the relevant documents
1 of 4
and preferring multiple representations to the respondents, she has not
been given family pension. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Short reply by way of an affidavit of Ms. Parneet Kaur,
Assistant Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats,
Punjab, on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, has been filed, wherein it
has been stated as under :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
3. That it is respectfully submitted that the pension has
been sanctioned to the petitioner vide PPO No.1659 and
the arrears of pension from 01.06.2022 to 15.07.2022,
amounting to Rs.37,605/-, and the arrear of family pension
from 16.07.2022 to July, 2024, amounting to Rs.5,01,563/-
totaling Rs.5,39,168/- have been paid to the petitioner on
12.09.2024. Further, the family pension is also being paid
to the petitioner through pension bill regularly.
xx xx xx xx xx"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although,
during the pendency of the instant petition, arrears of pension/family
pension have been released to the petitioner, however, the same have
been released after a considerable delay. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pension/family
pension.
5. Learned State counsel, while referring to the averments
made in the short reply filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2,
submits that the delay occurred in releasing the arrears of
pension/family pension of the petitioner is entirely procedural and not
intentional. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest.
2 of 4
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner unfortunately
died on 15.07.2022, whereas the arrears of pension amounting to
Rs.37,605/- and family pension amounting to Rs.5,01,563/- have been
released to the petitioner on 12.09.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than
two years from the death of her husband. Since there is a considerable
delay in releasing the arrears of pension/family pension of the petitioner,
therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of interest on the
delayed payment of arrears of pension/family pension as per settled
principles of law.
8. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of
Punjab : 1997(3) S.C.T. 468 has held that where there is an inordinate
delay in releasing benefits and the delay is not justifiable, employee will
be entitled for interest. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as
under:-
"8. 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
(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. xx xx xx xx"
3 of 4
9. Apart from this, in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana and
others : 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, this Court had held that an
employee will be entitled for the interest on an amount which has been
retained by the respondents without any valid justification. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under: -
"5. xx xx xx xx The jurisprudential basis for grant of
interest is the fact that one person's money has been used
by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of
money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the
part of the person with whom the money is laying it may
result in higher rate because then it can also include the
component of damages (in the form of interest). In the
circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of
the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly
belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State
and was being used by it."
10. In view of the above factual position and settled principles
of law, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the delayed payment of
arrears of pension/family pension, to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.09.2022
(i.e. after two months from the death of her husband) till the actual date
of payments, within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
11. Pending application, if any, shall stands disposed of
accordingly.
19.12.2025 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
