-
by sayum
17 February 2026 8:32 AM
Withholding Pension Is a Violation of Article 300-A—Court Awards 10% Interest on Delayed Payment - Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled in favor of Pritam Kaur, the widow of Late Gurnam Singh Sewak (Retired Civil Judge, Senior Division), directing the State of Punjab to release all pensionary dues with interest and exemplary costs for the inordinate delay. The Court held that pension is a constitutional right akin to property under Article 300-A, and its unjustified denial is illegal and arbitrary.
Quashing the State’s refusal to release pension and family pension, the Court ruled, "A retired judicial officer and his family deserve dignity and financial security. The denial of pensionary benefits for decades, despite a High Court order in his favor, is a blatant disregard of law and justice."
"Judicial Officer Denied Pension for Over Two Decades—Legal Battle Ensues"
The case concerned Gurnam Singh Sewak, who served as a judicial officer from 1977 and attained superannuation on June 30, 1999. His request for voluntary retirement in 1996 was declined, and he was placed under suspension on August 17, 1996, followed by dismissal from service on February 28, 2001, after a departmental inquiry.
Sewak challenged his dismissal in CWP No. 6377 of 2001, and in a landmark judgment on March 9, 2018, the High Court quashed his dismissal, restoring his entitlement to pensionary benefits. However, despite the Supreme Court dismissing the State’s appeal on May 10, 2019, neither his pension nor family pension for his widow was released.
The High Court reprimanded the authorities for their inaction, ruling, "Even after the Supreme Court affirmed the judicial officer’s right to pension, the State continued to deny his lawful dues, forcing his widow to litigate for what was rightfully hers."
"State’s Argument on Pension Recovery Rejected—Court Says Subsistence Allowance Cannot Be Refunded"
The State of Punjab attempted to justify the delay by claiming that the deceased officer had received subsistence allowance during his suspension from 1996 to 1999, which had to be recovered before processing pension. The Court dismissed this argument, stating, "Subsistence allowance is meant for survival during suspension. Treating it as recoverable salary is unjust and contrary to service jurisprudence."
The Vigilance Disciplinary Committee of the High Court, in its resolution dated March 24, 2023, had already decided to drop the pending charges and regularize the suspension period as leave due. The Court, finding no legal basis for withholding pension, ruled, "When all disciplinary proceedings stand dropped, there remains no justification for withholding pensionary benefits."
"High Court Awards Interest, Orders Exemplary Costs for Arbitrary Pension Delay"
Condemning the State’s failure to release pension and family pension despite judicial orders, the High Court ruled:
• Interest at 10% per annum must be paid on all delayed pension and family pension payments from the date they became due (July 1, 1999, for pension and October 3, 2021, for family pension) until full realization.
• Exemplary costs of ₹25,000 must be paid to the widow within 60 days for the undue hardship caused.
• Interest at 10% per annum must also be paid on delayed gratuity payments, including arrears arising from pay revisions.
The Court further allowed Pritam Kaur to apply for her husband’s retrospective promotion, directing that her representation be considered on its merits within 30 days.
"A Strong Judicial Warning Against Unlawful Withholding of Pension"
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that pension is not a government charity but a legal right. This judgment sends a clear message that arbitrary withholding of pension will not be tolerated, ensuring that retired employees and their families are treated with dignity and fairness.
Date of Decision: 07 March 2025
