Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Findings; Orders Full Pension and Retiral Benefits to Employee Denied Dues for 26 Years
Case Name: Mandhir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: RSA-5070-1999
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the regular second appeal and held that pension, gratuity, GPF/EPF and other retiral benefits could not be curtailed or restricted on grounds of limitation. The Court ruled that the employee, who served for 24 years and was never terminated from service, was entitled to full retiral dues from the date they became payable, along with 9% interest, setting aside the contrary findings of the trial and first appellate courts.
Summary: The appellant, who served from 1953 until his superannuation on 30.09.1985, was denied pensionary benefits on the pretext that he had remained absent and had filed the suit belatedly. Both courts below restricted pension to 38 months prior to the suit and rejected gratuity as time-barred.
The High Court took note of the record, which showed that no departmental proceedings were ever initiated for his absence and that he thus continued in service till retirement. Relying on binding precedents such as Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, D.S. Nakara, Gorakhpur University, and Starpayal Natarajan Iyer—all affirming that pension and gratuity are vested rights and not bounties, the Court held that retiral benefits cannot be denied on technicalities or limitation. It found the trial court’s reasoning contradictory, especially its refusal to grant gratuity while simultaneously holding the employee to be in qualifying service till retirement.
Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgments dated 21.04.1997 and 09.09.1999 were set aside. The civil suit was decreed in full, granting pension, gratuity, GPF/EPF and all retiral dues from their respective due dates with 9% interest. Amount already paid towards 38 months of pension would not carry interest. Considering that the appellant had been waiting for 26 years, the Court directed the State to deposit the entire amount in the appellant’s bank account within six months, to avoid forcing him into execution proceedings.