Pensionary Benefits Must Be Paid With Interest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams State For Withholding Late Senior Civil Judge’s Pension

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh expressed dismay and stated, “Reply of the respondents is conspicuously silent as to why family pension was sanctioned and released as late as in January-February-2024 whereas the same became due immediately after the death of husband of the petitioner on 02.10.2021.”

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, while Senior Deputy Advocate General, Salil Sabhlok, represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner’s husband served as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the office of the Accountant General, Punjab from October 1964 to November 1972, after which he was appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer in 1972. In 1973, he cleared the Civil Services (Judicial) examination and was designated as a Senior Civil Judge in 1996. That same year, he sought voluntary retirement, which was declined by the High Court, one of the Respondents herein, and was subsequently placed under suspension on August 17, 1996.

On October 15, 1996, a charge sheet for major misconduct was issued against him, initiating a departmental inquiry. While the disciplinary proceedings were pending, he attained the age of superannuation on June 30, 1999. However, provisional pension was neither sanctioned nor paid. In 2001, he was dismissed from service. He challenged this dismissal, and in 2018, this Court quashed the order, allowing his petition. This entitled him to superannuation pension or at least provisional pension from June 30, 1999, along with admissible retiral benefits. However, neither pension nor provisional pension was paid. In the absence of any provisional or regular pension, the petitioner, who was suffering from different ailments, expired on October 2, 2021. Thereafter the petitioner preferred this petition, during the pendency of which Vigilance Disciplinary Committee of the High Court on March 24, 2023 dropped both the charge-sheets against her late husband and resolved that the period spent during suspension from August 17, 1996 to June 30, 1999 be treated as leave due and the service benefits be released in favour of the legal heirs of deceased judicial officer. The superannuation pension and family pension were sanctioned and paid to the petitioner on March 13, 2024.

Reasoning

The Bench criticised the action of the Respondents stating, “Least that can be said about this case is that neither the judicial officer nor his family after his death were treated with dignity and grace. It is settled law that pensionary benefits as and when become due and admissible, if not released, are liable to be paid with interest and cost. The pensionary benefits and retiral claims are akin to property which cannot be deprived without authority of law as stipulated in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Denial of provisional/superannuation pension to the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner from 09.03.2018 till March-2024 was not only without authority of law but also is blatant disregard of law.”

The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the Respondents, to be paid to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the delayed gratuity payment, calculated from the date it became due, i.e., March 9, 2018, until its realization. Additionally, the respondents were directed to pay arrears of gratuity along with 10% per annum interest, if any arrears arose due to pay revision, provided they had not already been paid.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation No:2025:PHHC:032845-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Abhishek Masih, Gaurav Jagota

Respondents: Senior Deputy Advocate General, Salil Sabhlok; Advocate Dhiraj Chawla