Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaila Ram Swan vs Punjab State Water Resources ... on 21 November, 2025
CWP-34780-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107
CWP-34780-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2025
Jaila Ram Swan
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Water Resources Management and Development
Corporation Limited through its Managing Director
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
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 speaking order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure
P-6) whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking interest on delayed
payment of leave encashment, has been declined. Further a writ of
mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent to pay interest @
12% per annum for the period of delay of three years and four months in
making payment of leave encashment due to the petitioner upon his
superannuation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the petitioner retired as Superintending Engineer from the
1 of 4
respondent/Corporation on 31.01.2022 and after his retirement, the
respondent issued three charge-sheets against him on 22.08.2022 and
26.08.2022 and illegally withheld his leave encashment benefits. The
petitioner challenged the said charge-sheets by filing CWP Nos. 16037
of 2024 and 14025 of 2023, and during the pendency of the said
petitions, the respondent withdrew the charge-sheets and thereafter, the
respondent/Corporation sanctioned the leave encashment of
Rs.21,81,120/- in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 12.05.2025
(Anexure P-3) and released the payment on 22.05.2025. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed a representation dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-4)
seeking interest for the delay in releasing the leave encashment and this
Court in CWP No.21011 of 2025 (Annexure P-5), directed the
respondent to consider the representation and in compliance thereof, the
impugned speaking order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-6) was passed
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for interest.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submits that the impugned speaking order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure
P-6) was passed, in compliance with the directions of this Court in CWP
No.21011 of 2025 (Annexure P-5). The delay in release of leave
encashment to the petitioner occurred due to issuance of charge-sheets,
which were subsequently withdrawn during the pendency of CWP Nos.
16037 of 2024 and 14025 of 2023. The respondent has acted in
accordance with law and applicable service rules and, thus, the
2 of 4
impugned order is lawfully passed and does not warrant interference of
this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. A perusal of the speaking order indicates that the charge-
sheets were issued after the retirement of the petitioner. The first charge-
sheet issued to the petitioner was consigned to record on 27.03.2025 and
the second charge-sheet dated 26.08.2022 was withdrawn on 21.04.2025
and thereafter, the leave encashment was released to the petitioner in
terms of the order passed on 12.05.2025 (Annexure P-3). As such, the
petitioner is entitled to interest for delay in releasing the leave
encashment and other retiral dues in terms of judgment rendered by the
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)
6. 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.
7. In the view of the above discussions, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned speaking order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-
6) is quashed to the extent it rejects the petitioner's claim for interest.
The respondent is directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the
delayed leave encashment or other retiral dues, if any, @ 6% per annum,
to be calculated after the expiry of two months from the date of his
retirement. The aforesaid payment of interest shall be made to the
petitioner within a period of 03 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
4 of 4
