In a recent ruling, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directed the state government and High Court on its administrative side, respondents in the present case, to compensate the widow of a retired civil judge by paying interest on the arrears of both regular pension and family pension that had been unjustly withheld. Additionally, the court mandated that she be paid interest on the delayed gratuity amount as well.

Expressing strong disapproval over the prolonged delay in the disbursement of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues, the court criticized the state government and the High Court (administration ), respondents in the case, for their failure to ensure timely payments. The bench, also sternly reprimanded them for their inaction and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 as costs.

Lamenting that, “the present case reflects a sorry state of affairs’’ the bench underscored the fundamental principle that pensionary benefits and retirement-related claims hold the status of property and, as such, cannot be arbitrarily denied without legal sanction. This principle is enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.

The bench further noted that the non-payment of pension to the retired judge and, subsequently, to his widow from March 2018 to March 2024 was not only unlawful but also a blatant defiance of established legal norms.

This ruling was issued in response to a writ petition filed by Pritam Kaur, the wife of the late Gurnam Singh Sewak, who had served as a Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Magistrate. Sewak had retired from judicial service in 1999 but faced persistent legal and administrative challenges regarding his pension and retiral benefits.

Facts of the case reveal that Gurnam Singh Sewak had begun his professional journey in 1964 as an Upper Division Clerk in the Punjab Accountant General's office. Thereafter, he was driven to clear the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Examination in 1973, following which he joined the judicial service.

In 1996, he sought voluntary retirement, but his request was denied due to an ongoing departmental inquiry against him. Consequently, he was placed under suspension while the inquiry was underway.

Upon reaching the age of superannuation in 1999, Sewak formally retired from service. However, in 2001, he was dismissed from service as a consequence of the departmental proceedings against him. This dismissal, however, was challenged in court, and in 2018, the High Court ruled in his favour by quashing the chargesheet, the inquiry report, and the dismissal order.

While granting relief to Sewak, the High Court allowed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings against him if required, but only in accordance with the law. The state and the High Court’s administrative wing contested this ruling and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision in Sewak’s favour.

Despite these legal victories, the pension and retiral dues were not released for several years, leading to the present litigation filed by his widow, Pritam Kaur. The court’s recent order ensures that she receives not only the withheld pension and benefits but also interest on the delayed payments, reinforcing the principle that pensionary rights cannot be arbitrarily denied or delayed.

Due to the pendency of the enquiry and connected case, the pensionary benefits were not released to him. Sewak passed away in 2021. The enquiry against him, however, remained pending. In 2022, his widow approached the court with a writ petition for release of the pension and arrears of pension to her.

The High Court ( administrative side ), however, kept insisting for recovery of Rs 1,87,411 received by Sewak as subsistence allowance during his pension and thus neither provisional pension was paid nor the family pension was finalized and paid.

However, a year later, the Vigilance Disciplinary committee in 2023 decided to drop the chargesheets against Sewak and recommended that his suspension period be treated as a leave and resultant service benefits be released to his family. The High Court (administration) later informed the Accountant General of Punjab of its decision and accordingly the pension and gratuity was sanctioned to Sewak's family in 2024.

In their judgment of March 7, the court questioned the decision to withhold the pension to Sewak after 2018 when the penalty of dismissal from service was set aside. The court also questioned the decision of High Court ( administrative side) to insist on recovering the subsistence allowance paid to Sewak during his suspension period from August 1996 and June 1999.

Taking note of the delay in releasing his dues, the court observed that Sewak , who was suffering from various ailments , expired in 2021 without availing any provisional or regular pension. Consequently, the court directed the state to pay Sewak's widow interest over the arrears of regular pension and family pension. Further, it directed that she be paid interest over the amount of gratuity as well. Cost of Rs 25,000 was also imposed on the respondents including the state and the HC to be paid to the widow.

Owing to the prolonged delay of the departmental inquiry and the related legal proceedings against him, Gurnam Singh Sewak was denied his rightful pensionary benefits. Even after his superannuation in 1999, the inquiry remained inconclusive , and as a result, his pension was withheld. Despite his demise, the inquiry against him remained pending.

In 2022, his widow, Pritam Kaur, moved the High Court by filing a writ petition, seeking the release of the pension that had been denied to her late husband, along with the arrears of pension that had accumulated over the years. However, the High Court, in its administrative capacity, continued to insist on the recovery of ₹1,87,411, which had been disbursed to Sewak as subsistence allowance during his suspension period.

Due to this stance taken by the High Court (administration), neither was a provisional pension granted, nor was the family pension finalized and disbursed to Kaur.

It was only in 2023, a year after Kaur’s legal challenge, that the Vigilance Disciplinary Committee reviewed the matter and decided to drop the pending chargesheets against Sewak.

The committee further recommended that Sewak’s period of suspension from August 1996 to June 1999 be treated as leave, thereby enabling the release of his due service benefits to his family. Acting upon this recommendation, the administrative wing of the High Court later communicated its decision to the Punjab Accountant General, leading to the formal sanctioning of Sewak’s pension and gratuity for his family in 2024.

In its judgment delivered on March 7, the court critically examined the legality of withholding Sewak’s pension from 2018 onwards, particularly after the penalty of dismissal from service had already been set aside. The bench also critically scrutinized the High Court administration’s insistence on recovering the subsistence allowance that had been paid to Sewak during his suspension, deeming it unreasonable and unjustified.

Expressing its deep concern over the delay in releasing Sewak’s legitimate dues, the court noted that he had been suffering from multiple health complications at the time of his death in 2021. And without access to either provisional or regular pension, Sewak had spent his final years in financial distress, which the court deemed as a grave miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, acknowledging the hardship caused to his widow, a Writ of Mandamus was issued to the respondents to pay interest over the arrears of regular pension together with the family pension paid late at 10% per year from the date the regular pension became due and the family pension became due.

All arrears accrued out of revision in pension, if not already paid were directed to be paid to the petitioner.

Additionally, the court mandated that she be paid interest at the rate of 10% on the delayed gratuity amount.

In conclusion, the bench also firmly ordered that, “Respondents are liable to be fastened with exemplary costs quantified at Rs 25,000, which shall be paid to the petitioner(widow of the deceased judicial officer) within a period of 60 days, failing which the petition be put up as PUD before the appropriate Bench for execution. Apportionment of quantum of cost and responsibility of bearing the same , is left for the respondents to decide,’’

Case Title: Pritam Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others.

Civil Writ Petition No. 27273 of 2022 (O& M)