“Husband’s Role Was Bound to Be Under Scanner”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Withholding of Deceased Employee’s Benefits Pending Suicide Probe, Denies Interest Where Department Is Not Responsible for Delay

Case Name: Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: September 14, 2026

Citation: CWP No. 15687 of 2024

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the release of family pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits may be kept in abeyance as a precautionary measure while the police are investigating the unnatural death of a government employee. Where the employee died by suicide, the department was justified in awaiting police clearance to determine whether her husband or any other family member was involved in the death or its abetment.

The Court rejected the contention that, under Rule 52(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, the benefits could be withheld only after the eligible family member had formally been charged with murder or abetment. Whether a family member was required to be charged could itself be determined only upon completion of the investigation. Until the police completed that exercise and issued a clearance, the department’s decision to withhold the benefits could not be characterised as arbitrary.

The Court further held that interest on delayed payment is not an automatic entitlement. Interest serves as compensation for the wrongful denial or loss of use of money, while penal interest is imposed upon a wrongdoer responsible for delaying payment. Its grant remains discretionary and must be governed by fairness, equity and the circumstances of each case. Where the department was not responsible for the delay and released the benefits after receiving police clearance and the requisite documents, no interest was payable.

Summary: The petitioner’s wife, Meenakshi, was employed as a Senior Scale Stenographer in the Haryana Urban Estates Department. She died by suicide on July 12, 2017. The petitioner applied for family pension and other service-related death benefits on July 27, 2017 and subsequently furnished the documents sought by the department.

As the death was unnatural, the department sought a report from the police concerning the circumstances of the suicide and the possibility of criminal proceedings. In December 2017, the police informed the department that proceedings under Section 174 CrPC had been initiated, the viscera had been sent for forensic examination and the final report was awaited. No criminal case had been registered against anyone at that stage.

The department repeatedly corresponded with the police seeking the forensic result, the status of the investigation and information regarding any person’s involvement in the death. The chemical examination report was received in October 2018, and the medical board subsequently opined that the death had occurred due to hanging. Ultimately, the police concluded that no person was responsible for the suicide and that no FIR was required to be registered. The final police report was dated October 24, 2020, and the relevant position was placed before the High Court through an affidavit dated February 1, 2021.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court through CWP No. 27583 of 2019 for release of the death benefits with interest. On February 26, 2021, the Court directed the competent authority to pass a fresh order in light of the police affidavit and to release any amount found payable. The petitioner later instituted contempt proceedings.

The department thereafter sought an affidavit identifying the deceased employee’s legal heirs and other prescribed documents. The petitioner supplied the legal-heir affidavit on November 15, 2021. Payments were subsequently released between December 2021 and March 2023, including ex gratia assistance, Group Insurance Scheme benefits, leave encashment, death-cum-retirement gratuity and arrears of financial assistance.

The petitioner claimed interest on these payments by relying upon the Full Bench decision in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) SCT 468. His claim was rejected by the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, through an order dated April 26, 2024, leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioner argued that Rule 52(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 permitted suspension of family pension only where an eligible family member had been charged with murdering the government employee or abetting that offence. Since no FIR had been registered and he had never been charged, the department allegedly had no authority to withhold the benefits.

The High Court rejected this interpretation in the circumstances of the case. It observed that whether the petitioner or any other person was liable to be charged could be determined only after completion of the investigation. As the deceased had died by suicide, the petitioner’s possible role necessarily remained under scrutiny until the police completed the investigation. The department was therefore justified in withholding the benefits as a precautionary measure while awaiting police clearance.

The Court found that the department had repeatedly pursued the matter with the police and that the delay was not attributable to any omission or deliberate inaction on its part. It also noticed that part of the delay arose because the petitioner supplied certain documents only after they were called for by the department.

Relying upon the principles governing the award of interest discussed in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and I.K. Merchants Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that interest must compensate for wrongful deprivation and cannot be imposed mechanically or punitively. Since there was no wrongful or deliberate delay by the department, the petitioner had no enforceable entitlement to interest.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for interest on the delayed release of his deceased wife’s pensionary and other service benefits. The Court found that the department was justified in awaiting completion of the police investigation and was not responsible for the delay.