Ram Parkash v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 RAM PARKASH .....Petitioner

VERSUS

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sapna Bali, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ, order or directions especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest on the total amount of arrears amounting to Rs.8,33,709/- i.e. Rs.7,00,860/- as arrears of revised pension and Rs. 1,32,849/- difference of revised gratuity paid/payable to the

petitioner, which is evident from office order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-5), calculation sheet dated nil (Annexure P-6) and letter dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) on account of revised pension and other pensionary benefits by counting work charge service from 26.09.1986 to 07.11.1996 with regular service from 08.11.1996 to 31.12.2010, and the petitioner may kindly be granted interest @12% per annum in view of the settled law and various judgments passed by this Court, in the interest of justice. CONTENTIONS 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar (work-charged) on 25.09.1986. Subsequently, he was regularized and designated from Beldar to T/Mate and was further promoted as Assistant Lineman on 08.11.1996. The petitioner retired as ALM after rendering a total service of around 24 years on 31.12.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner had made representations prior to his retirement for counting his work-charged service towards qualifying service for pension. Even after retirement, the petitioner continued to submit representations, followed by a legal notice dated 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), seeking revised pensionary benefits by including his work-charged service along with interest. Pursuant thereto, on 11.10.2024, the respondent-Corporation issued an office order for counting of the work-charged service (Annexure P-5), and accordingly, on 24.03.2025, a

revised P.P.O. and G.P.O. were issued granting revised pension and gratuity, as is evident from (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel further refers to letter dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) and submits that although the revised pension and differential amounts towards gratuity were paid, the interest on the delayed payment was not granted. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) demanding interest on arrears, which remained unheeded. It is contended that such delay per se entitles the petitioner to interest in view of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343.

3.

Ms. Sapna Bali, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the retiral dues along with arrears have since been disbursed to the petitioner. However, she is unable to controvert the factual position that there has been an inordinate delay in the release thereof. She fairly concedes that an office order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) was issued counting the workcharged service of the petitioner for pension, pursuant to which a revised P.P.O. and G.P.O. were issued granting revised pension and gratuity. She also does not dispute that the controversy involved herein stands squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment rendered in A.S. Randhawa (supra).

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the pleadings as well as the record produced, with their able assistance. It transpires that arrears of ₹7,00,860/- were paid towards revised pension and ₹1,32,849/- were paid as the differential amount towards gratuity. Thus, a total amount of ₹8,33,709/- has been paid; however, no interest has been granted to the petitioner. It is further noted that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2010 and submitted a legal notice only on 19.07.2024, followed by the filing of CWP-25201-2024. In these circumstances, the petitioner is held entitled to interest only for a period of 38 months, i.e., from the date of filing of CWP-25201-2024, @ 6% per annum.

6.

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the arrears of revised pension have been released and the petitioner is presently receiving regular pension. The lis, thus, survives in a narrow compass, confined to the claim of interest on the delayed disbursement of arrears. The issue is no longer res integra. The case of the petitioner is squarely governed by the dictum of the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa (supra), wherein it has been authoritatively enunciated that pension and retiral benefits are not bounty but a vested right, and that any culpable delay

in disbursement beyond a reasonable period quantified therein as two months would entail liability to pay interest on the belated payments. 7.

In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, and without embarking upon any further adjudication on ancillary aspects, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to compute and release interest on the delayed payment of arrears of revised pension payable to the petitioner @ 6% per annum. The interest shall be calculated from date of filing of CWP-25201-2024 i.e. from 19.07.2024 till the date of actual realization. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out and the consequential monetary benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8.

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 17.04.2026 Parul Verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No