Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 21 November, 2025
CWP-34786-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108
CWP-34786-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2025
Jagdish Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vishesh Singhmar, Advocate
for Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate
for the respondents.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari, for quashing the order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-10)
whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of interest has
been rejected. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to
pay interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner on account of delay in
payment of retiral benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the petitioner was appointed as a Drvier with the
respondent/Corporation and he was illegally removed from service on
12.04.2012 as discernible from Annexure P-2. The petitioner challenged
his termination and the Coordinate Bench of this Court upheld the order
1 of 5
of termination, however, the Division Bench of this Court in LPA
No.1375 of 2017 (Annexure P-4), vide order dated 22.07.2022 has set-
aside the order of termination and held that the petitioner is entitled to
continuity of service till his superannuation. In terms of the order passed
by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was deemed to be in
service till his superannuation on 30.09.2018 and he is entitled to all
consequential benefits, however, his retiral dues were not released. The
petitioner filed COCP-1070-2024 for non-compliance. The respondents
in their reply, stated that the retiral benefits have been released on
12.08.2024 (Annexure P-7) and as such, the COCP-1070-2024, was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file
representation for claiming interest. Thereafter, the petitioner served a
legal notice dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-9), which was rejected by
the respondent/Corporation vide impugned order dated 26.06.2025
(Annexure P-10) on the ground that the intra-court appeal filed by the
petitioner has not specifically directed for payment of interest to the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
could not controvert the factual position and submits that the petitioner
is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues as
the Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the intra-court appeal
and granting continuity of service, did not issue any specific direction
for payment of interest, and in absence of such mandate, the
respondents were justified in confining themselves to release interest to
2 of 5
the petitioner. He further submits that the delay in release of benefits
was not deliberate or attributable solely to the respondents, as the matter
remained sub judice for several years before this Court. He further
contends that the present writ petition, being a second writ seeking only
interest after the earlier round of litigation, is not maintainable, as a
separate writ cannot be filed to claim consequential monetary relief
when the main proceedings have already attained finality. Therefore, the
rejection of the petitioner's representation dated 26.06.2025 is legal and
warrants no interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the
petitioner has challenged the order of termination and at that time, the
issue of retiral benefits and interest was not the subject matter of the
writ petition filed by the petitioner. Further the intra-court appeal i.e.
LPA-1375-2017 was decided on 22.07.2022, after the retirement of the
petitioner on 30.09.2018 and as such, the petitioner is entitled to interest
from the date of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court.
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
3 of 5
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
(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 view of the above discussions, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-10),
4 of 5
whereby the petitioner's representation for grant of interest was
rejected, is hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to pay interest
@ 6% per annum to the petitioner on the delayed release of his retiral
benefits. The interest shall be calculated from 22.07.2022, i.e. the date
of the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.1375-2017, till
12.08.2024, the date on which the retiral dues were actually disbursed.
The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.11.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
