Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Nand Sangwan vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 4 February, 2026
1
CWP-20447
20447-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208
CWP
CWP-20447-2017
Date of Decision: February 04, 2026
Daya Nand Sangwan
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Raman B. Garg with Mr. Mayank Garg and Ms. Komal
Parveen, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release unpaid/withheld retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, commutation of pension wit withh interest @ 18% per annum. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to pay the petitioner 2nd ACP grade pay w.e.f. 01.02.2007 on completion of 20 years of regular satisfactory service under the provisions of Haryana Civil Services (Assured (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008 with all consequential 1 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:42 ::: 2 CWP-20447 20447-2017 benefits including arrears with interest @ 18% per annum, in the wake of order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18).
P
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2012 while holding the post of Secretary, Municipal Council, Fatehabad (Annexure P P-1).
1). At the time of his retirement, two charge-sheets charge sheets dated 14.05.2007 and 13.02.2008 (Annexures P-2 and P--3, respectively) ectively) were pending against him. The disciplinary proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing CWP-18956-2015, titled Daya another, which was disposed Nand versus State of Haryana and another d of vide order dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure P-16) P 16) with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Since the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the petitioner filed COCP-
COCP 1181-2016,, titled Daya Nand Sangwan versus Anil Kumar Kumar,, decided on 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-19).
P 19). During the pendency of the contempt petition, respondent No.1 passed a speaking order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P P-18),
18), whereby both the charge-sheets charge sheets were dropped. While passing the sa said id order, respondent No.1 not only dropped the charges but also directed release of all retiral dues, including grant of second ACP w.e.f. 01.02.2007. Following which the said order was not complied with, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court again again by filing the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, all retiral dues were eventually paid. However, interest on gratuity and leave encashment was paid only from January, 2017 2 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 3 CWP-20447 20447-2017 and not from the due date. No interest was paid on LTC, ACP pay scale arrears, and commutation of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the affidavit dated 22.10.2019 filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein details of retiral benefits and dates of payment have been furnished. The petitioner ner controverted the same by filing a rejoinder/counter affidavit dated 05.03.2020, stating that interest was paid only on gratuity and leave encashment.
3. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the reply to the rejoinder filed by the respondents, it stands admitted that interest amounting to Rs.1,04,802/-
Rs.1,04,802/ was paid on gratuity and leave encashment w.e.f. 01.01.2017. He further refers to page 127 of the paper book and places reliance upon the sanction order for commutation of pension (Annexure P-22),
22), submitting that the amount calculated therein was Rs.4,42,190/ Rs.4,42,190/--, whereas the petitioner was paid only Rs.63,670/ Rs.63,670/-.. Reliance is also placed upon notification dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P P-23)
23) and Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Volume II, to contend that a government employee is entitled to commute up to 40% of his pension, which is to be restored on completion of 15 years from the date of retirement or from the date of actual receipt of the commuted value, whichever is later.
4. Per contra,, learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to interest. Reliance is placed upon office memorandum dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure R R-1),
1), particularly Clause 5(iii), to contend that in cases where disciplinar disciplinary y proceedings are dropped 3 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 4 CWP-20447 20447-2017 on account of lack of evidence or on the ground that the employee has retired, no interest is payable on retiral benefits for a period of three months from the date of the final decision in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further her submitted that if the delay exceeds three months from the date of such decision and the employee has completed all requisite formalities, interest may be allowed only from the date of decision till the date of payment. Learned State counsel further ref refers ers to the speaking order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18) P 18) and submits that the petitioner was also involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 36 dated 18.11.2005, registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 read with Section 120 120-B B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)
d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station SVB, Gurgaon, and was acquitted on 11.02.2014. In the backdrop of these facts, the disciplinary charges against the petitioner were dropped by taking a sympathetic view.
5. In rebuttal, learned ned counsel for the petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields. The charge--sheets sheets were issued in the years 2007 and 2008, yet no effective steps were taken by the competent authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. It is the legitimate expectation of every employee that disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time. No delay can be attributed to the petitioner, who was compelled to approach this Court first by filing CWP-18956-2015 CWP 2015 and thereafter COCP COCP-1181-2016.
2016. The petitioner has already suffered prolonged litigation, whereas the respondents 4 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 5 CWP-20447 20447-2017 are solely responsible for delaying the disciplinary proceedings for more than a decade.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for th thee parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It transpires that petitioner retired on 30.06.2012 and at that point of time, two charge charge-sheets sheets were pending against him pertaining to years 2007 2007-08.
08. The respondents did not take any adequate adequate steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable dispatch compelling the petitioner to file CWP CWP-18956-2015, 2015, followed by COCP-1181-2016 COCP 2016 and it was only during the pendency of the said contempt petition, respondent No.1 passed a speaking order dated 09.01.2017 (Annexure P-18), P 18), whereby both the charge charge-sheets sheets were dropped.
Further, the claim of the petitioner regarding interest on LTC, ACP and computation of pension has not been controverted by the learned State counsel. Further in response to the query raised by this Court on 20.03.2023, the following order was passed:-
passed:
"Both Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the commuted value of the pension was sanctioned only in October, October 2019 and an amount of Rs.63,617/ Rs.63,617/- was paid on 09.10.2019. Since the petitioner had retired on 30.06.2012, therefore, Rule 11.1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume Volume-II II was applicable, which reads as under:-
"(1) A Government employee, on
superannuation/premature
premature retirement, shall be
5 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 :::
6
CWP-20447
20447-2017
entitled to commute for a lump sum payment a fraction not exceeding 40% (forty percent) of his pension. The fraction of pension so commuted on retirement i.e. superannuation/pre superannuation/pre-mature mature retirement shall, however be restored to him on completion of 15 years from the date of retirement or 15 years from the actual receipt of commutation value, whichever is later."
The respondent-Department Department has relied upon Rule 106 of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, which is not applicable licable to the case in hand as these rules came into force only w.e.f 01.01.2016.
Learned State counsel may apprise this Court as to how Rules of 2016 are made applicable to the case of the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner was entitled for the fracti fraction on of pension so commuted on retirement and the same was to be restored on completion of 15 years from the date of retirement or 15 years from the actual receipt of commutation value, whichever is later. The interest component is also applicable on the rec recovery overy of commuted portion of the pension."
7. In compliance thereto, an affidavit of Sh. Y.S. Gupta, Additional Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, Panchkula was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, wherein reliance was placed upon the explanation on attached to Rule 15 of the Pension Rules, 2009 to justify the recovery of Rs.3,78,517/-.
Rs.3,78,517/ . It was clarified that Rule 106 of the Haryana Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2016 is prospective in nature, however, prior to the promulgation of the 2016 Rules, the the Pension Rules of 2009 contained 6 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 7 CWP-20447 20447-2017 a similar provision for recovery of excess payment in the explanation attached to Rule 15.
8. Further, Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the notification dated 17.04.2019 vide which the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-II, Part II, Rules 2009 were notified and submitted that there is no explanation attached to Rule 15. Copy of the same was taken on record as mark 'X'. He further provided copy of the notification dated 04.10.2013 which was taken on record as mark 'Y' and submitted that the explanation attached with the said notification was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, 415,, while emphasizing High Court of Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 the duty of the employer to conclude disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, held as under:
"31) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures...
33) ...every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year."
7 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 8 CWP-20447 20447-2017
10. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2012. The charge-sheets sheets were issued in 2007 and 2008. The respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings for nearly a decade. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court twice, first in 2015 and thereafter in contempt proceedings in 2016. It was only during the pendency of the contempt petition that the respondents dropped the charges on 09.01.2017. The respondents have offered no explanation whatsoever for this inordinate and unexplained delay of 9-10 9 10 years. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the administrative administrative lapses of the respondents. The sword of disciplinary action was kept dangling over the petitioner indefinitely, contrary to the mandate of Prem Nath Bali (supra) .
11. The entitlement of a retired employee to timely disbursement of retiral benefits benefits and the consequential right to interest upon delay is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343, laid down the seminal principle:
"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 roper 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... 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 8 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 9 CWP-20447 20447-2017 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."
(emphasis supplied)
12. This principle has been consistently followed. In Jagjit Singh v. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others, CWP CWP-16745 16745- 2022,, decided on 11.11.2025, this Court directed payment of iinterest nterest at 6% per annum from two months after retirement till actual realization.
13. This Court in Tara Chand Tusamer v. State of Haryana and , decided on 22.05.2019 (Annexure P another, CWP-12146-2016, CWP P-24)
24) , while dealing with a case where charge-sheets charge sheets were issued on the last date of service and were subsequently dropped, held that the pendency of charge-
charge sheets cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner so as to withhold amounts he was entitled to immediately upon retirement. The respondents were directed to pay interest for the period of delay.
14. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2012. His retiral benefits ought to have been disbursed by 31.08.2012 at the latest. The disciplinary proceedings were dropped only on 09.01.2017, and payme payments nts were made thereafter. Some payments, such as commutation of pension, were made as late as 09.10.2019, over 7 years after retirement. The respondents have admitted to paying interest on gratuity and leave encashment from January 2017, thereby acknowledg acknowledging ing the entitlement to interest. However, interest ought to have been paid from the due date i.e. two months after retirement, and on all retiral benefits, not selectively.
9 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 10 CWP-20447 20447-2017
15. The respondents' reliance on Clause 5(iii) of the office memorandum dated 05.05.2008 05.05.2008 to deny interest for the period prior to three months from the date of final decision is completely misplaced. This clause cannot be invoked by the respondents to take advantage of their own inaction in delaying the disciplinary proceedings for nea nearly rly a decade. The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no one can take advantage of his own wrong) squarely applies. An administrative instruction cannot override the fundamental principle of compensation for wrongful withholding of legitimate dues.
16. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2012. His entitlement to commutation of pension is governed by Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II Volume II (as applicable to the State of Haryana), which reads:
"(1) A Government employee, on superannuation/premature retirement, shall be entitled to commute for a lump sum payment a fraction not exceeding 40% of his pension. The fraction of pension so commuted on retirement i.e. superannuation/pre superannuation/pre-mature mature retirement shall, however be restored to him on completion of 15 years from the date of retirement or 15 years from the actual receipt of commutation value, whichever is later."
17. The respondents, instead of disbursing the full commuted value of Rs.4,42,190/-
Rs.4,42,190/ as sanctioned, paid only Rs.63,617/ Rs.63,617/- on 09.10.2019. The balance amount of Rs.3,78,573/-
Rs.3,78,573/ was recovered on account of installments of 87 months, also including interest at about 8.5%. This recovery is patently 10 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 11 CWP-20447 20447-2017 illegal and without authority of law.
18. The respondents sought to justify this recovery by placing reliance on the explanation attached to Rule 15 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 (as per notification dated 04.10.2013). This justification is unsustainable for multiple reasons:
(a.) Firstly, the respondents have themselves admitted in their affidavit dated 22.10.2019 that Rule Rule 106 of the Haryana Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2016 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioner. The same logic applies with equal force to the 2013 notification amending the 2009 Rules. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2012, more than a year prior to the said notification.
His rights crystallized on the date of retirement and cannot be governed by rules or notifications issued post post-retirement.
(b.) Secondly, the explanation attached to Rule 15, even if applicable, only permits recovery of additional amount. The present case is not one of recovery of excess payment; it is a case of non-
non disbursement of the base commuted value itself. The respondents cannot be permitted to dress up a case of non non-payment payment as one of recovery.
very.
(c.) Thirdly, the respondents have not disbursed the commuted value and then effected recovery; they have simply withheld the amount upfront. This is a colourable exercise of power.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. 11 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 12 CWP-20447 20447-2017 Cooperative ative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, (2014) 7 SCC 260, 260 while considering whether disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee could be continued in absence of any rule to that effect, held:
"6. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be hel held d that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retrial benefits."
(emphasis supplied)
20. Applying the above principle, the respondents had no authority to impose any recovery from the retiral benefits of the pe petitioner titioner post-
post retirement, especially when the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped and no order of recovery was ever passed against the petitioner. The recovery of Rs.3,78,573/-
Rs.3,78,573/ is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta State Transport 594, held:
Corporation v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 SCC Online SC 594 "11. ...For any fault on the part of the Corporation, the employees cannot be made to suffer."
22. In the present case, the delay in disciplinary proceedings, the consequent delay in release of retiral benefits, and the recovery from commuted value of pension are all attributable solely to the respondents. The petitioner has been pursuing his legitimate claims since 2015, first through writ petition, then contempt petition, and now the present writ petition. He has already suffered prolonged litigation and financial hardship.
12 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 13 CWP-20447 20447-2017 He cannot be made to suffer further on account of the respondents' administrati lapses.
administrative
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court observes that:
that:-
(i) The respondents have failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a reasonable time, in violation of the mandate laid down in Prem Nath Bali (supra) . The inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly a decade is solely attributable to the respondents.
(ii) The petitioner is entitled to interest on all delayed retiral benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, LTC, ACP arrears, and commutation of pension, from two months after the date of retirement i.e. 31.08.2012 till the date of actual payment, in terms of A.S. Randhawa (supra).
(supra)
(iii) The respondents' reliance on Clause 5(iii) of the office memorandum dated 05.05.2008 to deny interest is mi misconceived sconceived and cannot be permitted to defeat the petitioner's legitimate entitlement to compensation for wrongful withholding of his dues.
(iv) The recovery of Rs.3,78,573/ Rs.3,78,573/- from the commuted value of pension is patently illegal and without authority of law. The respondents are liable to refund the said amount to the petitioner with interest.
(v) The petitioner's entitlement to commutation of pension is governed by Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 13 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 14 CWP-20447 20447-2017 Volume II as applicable on the date of hhis Volume-II is retirement i.e. 30.06.2012.
Rules/notifications issued post-retirement post retirement (2013/2016) cannot be applied retrospectively to his detriment.
24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The respondents are dire
directed
cted to pay interest on the
delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment, LTC, and ACP arrears at the rate of 6% per annum from 31.08.2012 (two months after retirement) till the date of actual payment, within a period of three months from the date of rece receipt ipt of certified copy of this order. The amount of inte interest rest already paid i.e. Rs.1,04,802/- shall be adjusted against the total interest computed.
(ii) The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs.3,78,573/ Rs.3,78,573/- to the petitioner along with ith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 09.10.2019 (date of payment of Rs.63,617/-)) till the date of actual refund, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) The respondents are directed to re recalculate calculate the commuted value of pension strictly in accordance with Rule 11.1(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume Volume-II II (as 14 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 ::: 15 CWP-20447 20447-2017 applicable to the State of Haryana) as on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.06.2012, and pay the differential amount, if any, to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 31.08.2012 till the date of actual payment, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) In case of default in compli
compliance
ance within the
stipulated period, the interest payable shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum for the period of further delay.
25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE February 04, 0 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 15 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2026 22:58:43 :::