[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Yogesh Saini And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2026

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                       HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
                                                ****
                                         CWP-670-2025 (O&M)
                                                ****
                     Yogesh Saini & Anr.                    ... Petitioners

                                                                     VS.

                     State of Haryana & Ors.                                                      ... Respondents
                                                                       ****
                               1.   Judgment reserved on                                           11.03.2026
                               2.   Judgment pronounced on                                         23.04.2026
                               3.   Judgment uploaded on                                           24.04.2026
                               4.   Whether operative or full judgment                                Full
                               5.   Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any        NA
                                                      ****
                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
                                                      ****
                     Present: Dr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

                               Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG Haryana
                                                     ****
                     Sandeep Moudgil, J.

Prayer

(1). The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of

Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to release interest @ 18% p.a. on the delayed

payment of pensionary benefits and family pension in respect of the deceased

father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 which was illegally

retained by the respondents and to release the litigation expenses to the

petitioners.

Facts

(2). The father of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 and husband of

petitioner No.2, late Sh. Ved Parkash, was serving as Store Purchase Officer

with respondent No.4 and died in harness on 12.08.2014. The petitioners

thereafter made repeated applications, and respondent No.5 obtained a

Succession Certificate in Civil Suit No.24 of 2014 vide orders dated 02.05.2017

and 06.07.2017 directing release of 1/3rd share each and FDR of petitioner

No.2's share, yet despite petitioner No.1 submitting all requisite documents

including representations dated 16.09.2019 and 19.01.2023 and obtaining

orders regarding custody and care of petitioner No.2 (in CRWP No.61 of 2020)

as well as compromise-based disposal of guardianship proceedings in which

petitioner No.2 herself stated before the Additional District Judge, Karnal, on

18.10.2022 that she is in good health and wishes to reside with petitioner No.1

and has no objection to her pensionary and other benefits being routed through

him, respondents No.1 to 4 have failed to release family pension and the 1/3rd

share of petitioner No.2 and have illegally retained the same till date.

                     (3).         Hence this writ petition.

                     Petitioners' contentions

                     (4).         Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that family pension is a

welfare measure payable to the surviving spouse and eligible children and does

not form part of the estate of the deceased so as to require a succession

certificate where heirship is undisputed, and therefore the official respondents

cannot lawfully withhold family pension and other retiral dues of late Ved

Parkash in the face of admitted relationship and status of petitioner No.2 as

widow and petitioner No.1 as her son and caretaker.

(5). It is asserted that once a competent civil court has determined

1/3rd shares of the parties in the estate and directed that the share of petitioner

No.2 be kept in FDR, and once petitioner No.2 has voluntarily deposed before

the District Judge that she is in good health, wishes to live with petitioner No.1

and has no objection to all benefits being released to her through him,

respondents are bound to honour these judicial determinations and cannot sit in

appeal over them by refusing to process and release the dues.

(6). It is further contended that the continuing non-release and illegal

retention of the family pension and 1/3rd share of petitioner No.2 despite clear

court orders and repeated representations is arbitrary, unreasonable and

violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting issuance of an

appropriate writ directing respondents No.1 to 4 to release all pending service

and pensionary benefits of late Ved Parkash, including family pension and the

share of petitioner No.2, along with interest.

Respondents counter

(7). Based on the averments made in the written statement filed by

respondent No.4, learned State counsel submits that pursuant to the repeated

representations of petitioner No.1, Yogesh Saini (son of deceased Ved Parkash

Saini), the competent authority has already considered the claim and, vide order

dated 26.04.2024, had sanctioned the entire share of service benefits and

pension of petitioner No.2 (Smt. Kaushal Saini wife of deceased Ved Parkash

Saini) to be disbursed through petitioner No.1, followed by letter dated

02.05.2024 calling upon petitioner No.2 to appear in person and furnish

requisite documents and thereafter on 26.07.2024, and submission of all

required documents, the case was processed, necessary approval was obtained

from respondent No.3, and the full 1/3rd share of petitioner No.2 in all

service/retiral dues, namely leave encashment, arrears of pay, GIS amounts,

gratuity, GPF etc., was duly released to petitioner No.2 through petitioner No.1

under various vouchers and enhanced family pension is also being paid to

petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 through petitioner No.1 and thus, all

admissible dues stand paid in compliance with the civil court orders dated

02.05.2017, 03.09.2022 and 03.01.2023.

(8). It is further averred that in terms of Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, no interest is payable where pension and death-

cum-retirement gratuity are authorised within the stipulated period from the

date the prescribed procedure is complied with by the family of the deceased,

and in the present case any delay that occurred is attributable solely to the

failure of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 to furnish

complete documents in time, for which the officials respondents cannot be

saddled with liability to pay interest. The respondents also submit that the

petitioners have concealed material facts regarding their own default in timely

submission of documents and are misusing the writ jurisdiction to claim

interest contrary to Rule 79, and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. State of Maharashtra &

others, 2013(9) SCC 92, a litigant who suppresses or conceals material facts is

not entitled to any discretionary relief and as such, the present writ petition is

liable to be dismissed.

(9). Heard learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was kept

reserved on 11.03.2026.

Analysis

(10). On a careful consideration of the chequered factual history and the

applicable law, the Court's focus has to be on (i) who was entitled to the retiral

benefits and family pension of late Ved Parkash, and (ii) can the respondents be

held liable to pay interest on delayed release of retiral dues and, if so yes, from

which date.

(11). It is not in dispute that late Ved Parkash died in harness on

12.08.2014 leaving behind his widow (petitioner No.2), son (petitioner No.1)

and daughter (respondent No.5), who are his Class-I legal heirs under the

Hindu Succession Act. From that date, family pension in favour of petitioner

No.2 arose under the service rules, and the civil court, by order dated

02.05.2017 and Succession Certificate dated 06.07.2017 in Petition No.24 of

2014, further recognised each of them as entitled to 1/3rd share in the service

benefits. However, that very order directed that the widow's 1/3rd share be kept

in an FDR in a nationalised bank and restrained the respondent No.5/applicant

therein (daughter) from operating the account without a proper guardianship

declaration.

(12). The office of respondent No.4 was simultaneously faced with the

daughter's own assertion that the mother was mentally ill and admitted in

Pingla Ashram for three years and as such, the legal heirs' failure to furnish

complete documents and proof until 2017, and subsequent cross-litigation

under the Mental Health Act, 1987 between the son and the daughter on the

question as to who should be appointed the guardian of the widow. In this

backdrop, the department's decision to release, step by step, the 1/3rd shares of

the son and daughter upon complete documentation, while withholding pendent

lite the petitioner No.2/widow's share pending a clear resolution of

guardianship and mental capacity, cannot be said to be wholly unfounded.

(13). That legal and factual uncertainty continued until the settlement

dated 25.08.2022 and, more crucially, the orders dated 03.09.2022 and

03.01.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal. By these, both

rival guardianship petitions were closed on the basis of a mediation

proceedings wherein the petitioner No.2 herself appeared in Court on

18.10.2022 and categorically stated that she was in good health, wanted to

reside with her son Yogesh, and had no objection to all pensionary and other

benefits being provided to her through him and therefore, respondent No.5, in

the settlement, also recorded her no objection to release of all benefits of late

Ved Parkash to their mother through petitioner No.1. Once this position

crystallised and the guardian-competency cloud was removed, petitioner No.1

submitted representations dated 19.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 enclosing the

ADJ's order seeking release of the withheld share of petitioner No.2.

(14). Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued order dated 26.04.2024

sanctioning grant of petitioner No.2's share of service benefits and pension

through petitioner No.1, called her for production of documents on 02.05.2024,

obtained her personal appearance and documents on 26.07.2024, and then

released the retiral dues under various vouchers in August-October 2024, as

well as enhanced family pension with effect from 01.06.2015.

(15). The more contentious issue is whether the petitioners are entitled

to interest for delayed payment for the period from 19.01.2023 till 02.08.2024

when the leave encashment was released.

(16). Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 (in

short, 'the 2016 Rules') provides that no interest is payable if pension and

death-cum-retirement gratuity are authorised within a certain period from the

date the prescribed procedure is complied with by the family of the deceased

and where delay occurs, the entitlement to interest is regulated by whether the

delay is attributable to the department or to the employee/family. At the same

time, there is a consistent line of decisions holding that pension and family

pension are not bounties, but a property/right of the retiree or family protected

under Article 300A, and that where the authorities unjustifiably withhold or

delay such payments, courts may award interest and, in egregious cases, costs.

Rule 70(1) of the 2016 Rules read as under:-

"79. Interest on delayed payment of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity.― (1) No interest shall be payable if the payment of pension and/or death-cum-

retirement gratuity of superannuation retirement have been authorized within three months and in other kind of retirement within six months from the date of retirement or from the date the procedure laid down in this chapter is complied with by the retiring Government employee/family of deceased Government employee, whichever is later. Where the pensionary benefits are authorised after the prescribed period and the delay in authorization was attributable to administrative lapse, simple interest as of General Provident Fund beyond the prescribed period shall be paid. However, no interest shall be paid where the delay in authorization has been caused due to failure on the part of the retiring Government employee or the family of deceased or disappeared Government employee to comply with the procedure laid down in this chapter."

(17). On the facts here, however, the civil court itself directed that the

widow's share be kept in an FDR and made its operation conditional on

guardianship orders, and that direction was coupled with the daughter's own

plea that the widow was mentally ill. This produced a qualitatively different

scenario from a simple widow against department dispute, because the

respondent-Department was faced with conflicting positions of the legal heirs

and operative judicial orders regarding how the widow's share was to be

handled.

(18). Looking at the timeline, the Court is of the view that the delay

cannot be painted with a single brush. The period from August, 2014 up to at

least the final compromise and order dated 03.01.2023 is marked by incomplete

and belated submission of documents by the heirs, admitted mental-health

allegations against the petitioner No.2, an order of the civil court requiring FDR

and guardianship, and active cross-litigation under the Mental Health Act

between the son and the daughter as to who should control the petitioner No.2'

affairs. In such circumstances, the department's reluctance to release the

widow's share without a clear judicial mandate and proper documentation

cannot be characterised as wholly unjustified or mala fide so as to

automatically attract interest over the entire period.

(19). However, there is a further gap between January 2023 and the

eventual sanction order of 26.04.2024, call letter of 02.05.2024, appearance on

26.07.2024 and disbursements in August-October 2024. While some

reasonable processing time is inevitable, an overall delay of more than a year

after 03.01.2023, particularly in a matter affecting a widow's livelihood, cannot

be entirely condoned, and the protection of Rule 79 of the 2016 Rules cannot

be stretched to the point of depriving her of any interest at all for that phase.

(20). This Court is of the opinion that arrears of salary and retiral

benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld by the State and in case of delayed

payment thereof, the employee is entitled to compensatory interest. In "State of

Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429", the Supreme Court held

that pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty and that culpable delay in their

disbursement must be visited with payment of interest. Relevant extract of the

same is as under:

" Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and

property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.

2. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) and the N.L.C. (No Liability Certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Government Departments. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed atleast a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to diriect that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement"

(21). Similarly, in "S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44", it

was held by the Apex court that even in the absence of statutory rules, an

employee is entitled to claim interest on delayed payment under Articles 14 and

21 of the Constitution, while observing that

"The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If

CWP-670-2025 - 10 -

there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 'bounty' is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." (22). Furthermore, in "D.D. Tewari (D) through LRs v. Uttar Haryana

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894", the Supreme Court reiterated that

denial of timely payment of lawful dues warrants award of interest as

compensation, while categoically holding that,

"4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the employer- respondent to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent." (23). In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed

and considering Rule 79 of the 2016 Pension Rules and the prolonged

CWP-670-2025 - 11 -

intra-family disputes and guardianship litigation, the petitioners are not entitled

to interest for the entire period from 2014 onwards.

(24). However, in order to mark the State's obligation to deal with

pensionary claims of a widow with due promptitude once legal impediments

have ceased, the Court deems it appropriate to award to petitioner No.2 interest

at the rate of 6% per annum on the net amount of her service benefit share

(excluding family pension instalments) reckoning the date of passing of the

judgment by ADJ, Karnal directing to release the petitioner No.2's i.e. w.e.f.

03.01.2023 till its realisation.

(25). The respondents shall calculate and release the aforesaid interest