CWP-12717 IN TH 224 Ranjit Singh State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution order for qua vide which e have been dis 01.12.2011. mandamus recommendat praying for d 1 717-2021 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o Singh VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Ms. Diksha, Advocate for Mr.D petitioner. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. None for respondents No.2 to 4. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of or quashing para no.3 of the letter da ich employees who have retired betw een discriminated vis-a-vis the employ 011. Further praying for issuance directing the respondents endations of pay commission issued for directing the respondents to grant NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-12717-2021 Date of Decision: February 11, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR r Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the unjab. 2 to 4. een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of an appropriate writ, direction or tter dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) ed between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011 mployees who have retired on or after uance of a writ in the nature of ents for implementation of the issued by State of Punjab and further o grant petitioner all the consequential 2026 itioner ondents or the of the ion or 3) .2011 r after re of the urther ential PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12717 benefits such interest as th rendered by t 2. 3. 2 717-2021 s such as refixation of pension and t as the case of the petitioner is squa ed by this Court in CWP-2866-2014, d On 02.05.2024, the following or “Notice of motion in th 14.07.2021 for 25.11.2021. On 2 respondents No.2 to 4 had appe the reply. However, after a lap reply has been filed. Learned counsel appeari seeks last opportunity for filing t Let the needful be done w an advance copy of the learn subject to payment of costs of R the Punjab and Haryana High Fund. Adjourned to 30.08.2024. Replication, if any, be hearing.” On 16.10.2025, the following or “Learned counsel for judgment dated 30.09.2016 ren this Court in Karanvir Singh Punjab and others, CWP-28 and other pensionary benefits with is squarely covered by the judgment 014, decided on 30.09.2016. ing order was passed by this Court:- n the present case was issued on On 25.11.2021, learned counsel for appeared and sought time for filing a lapse of more than 02 years, no earing for respondents No.2 to 4 ling the reply. ne within a period of two weeks with learned counsel for the petitioner of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with igh Court Bar Association Welfare 024. be filed before the next date of ing order was passed by this Court:- for the petitioner refers to the rendered by Coordinate Bench of ingh and others Versus State of 2866-2014 (Annexure P-5) and s with gment on l for iling , no to 4 with oner with lfare e of the h of e of and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12717 4. on 16.10.202 Registry of t No. 2 to 4 i imposed by t Even today, nor has any 02.05.2024, b 5. submissions 3 717-2021 submits that the controversy in squarely covered. This Court, w of the retirees for refixation of th dated 15.12.2011 has categ 01.07.2011, retirees are entitled but without any retrospective when the competent authority m from 01.12.2011 in terms of t passed by this Court in CW Sharma and others Versus State There is no representation to 4. Learned State counsel i counsel for respondents No.2 t issue raised by the petitioner. Adjourned to 02.02.2026. There was no representation on b 10.2025 and again on 02.02.2026. I ry of this Court reveals that though a 4 is stated to be on record, the s d by this Court vide order dated 02.0 oday, there is no representation on be s any reply been re-filed or the cos 024, been deposited. Learned counsel for the p sions and again referred to the judgm sy involved in the present case is rt, while examining the entitlement of their pension in terms of circular ategorically concluded that pre titled to re-fixation of their pension tive effect and only from the date ity made it effective i.e. with effect of the judgment dated 22.10.2013 CWP-25733-2012 titled as A.P. State of Punjab and others. ation on behalf of respondents No.2 el is requested to inform learned .2 to 4 to assist this Court on the 026.” on on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 026. Information obtained from the ugh a reply on behalf of respondents , the same was returned as the costs d 02.05.2024 had not been deposited. on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4, e costs, in terms of the order dated the petitioner has reiterated his judgment dated 30.09.2016 rendered e is ent ular pre sion date ffect 013 A.P. o.2 rned the 2 to 4 m the dents costs sited. to 4, dated his dered PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12717 by the Coord State of Pu involved her prior to 01.07 dated 15.12.2 01.12.2011, (supra). 6. No. 2 to 4 to to controvert that the pres Karanvir Sin 7. learned State It transpires judgment ren relevant porti 4 717-2021 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kar Punjab and others (supra), con ed herein is squarely covered. It has 01.07.2011 are entitled to re-fixation 5.12.2011, though without retrospecti 011, in view of the judgment rend Even today, there is no represen o 4 to advance any argument. Learned rovert the stand taken by learned coun e present case is squarely covered r Singh’s case (supra). I have heard learned counsel State counsel and have perused the re spires that the case of the petitione nt rendered by this Court in Karan t portion thereof reads as under:- “Hence, it is ordered that the pr to re-fixation of their pension a and circulars issued by Gover without any retrospective effec when the competent authority m in terms of judgment of Divisio Karanvir Singh and others versus contending that the controversy It has been held therein that retirees ixation of pension in terms of circular ospective effect, and with effect from t rendered in A.P. Sharma’s case presentation on behalf of respondents earned State counsel has not been able d counsel for the petitioner or dispute vered by the judgment rendered in unsel for the petitioner as well as he record with their able assistance. titioner is squarely covered by the aranvir Singh’s case (supra). The he pre-1.1.2006 retirees are entitled on as per circular dated 15.12.2011 overnment from time to time but effect, namely, only from the date ity made it effective w.e.f. 1.12.2011 ivision Bench of this Court in A.P. rsus versy tirees ircular t from case dents n able ispute red in ell as tance. y the The itled 011 but date 011 A.P. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12717 8. deprecated fo place their sta to 4 of Rs.10 petitioner, pa unnecessarily 9. repeatedly a significant ha also by rema unclear whe administrativ This Court ca unchecked, instrumentali 5 717-2021 Sharma’s case (supra). Consequ between 1.1.2006 and 1.12.2011 of the pension but without retros date when competent author 1.12.2011. On account of re consequential benefits will als action be taken within three mo a certified copy of this judgment The act and conduct of th ated for not only wasting precious jud heir stand on record. The cost earlier im Rs.10,000/- is hereby enhanced to R er, particularly as the matter pertains ssarily prolonged. Evidently, the conduct of th dly and unreasonably delaying the cant harassment to the petitioner, not o remaining unrepresented during the r whether such delay was delibe strative apathy, the lapse nonetheles ourt cannot permit such harassment o ked, particularly when the respon entality and is expected to act as a mo sequently, post retirees who retired 2011 are also entitled to re-fixation etrospective effect, namely, from the uthority made it effective w.e.f. re-fixation of the pension, other also follow. Necessary follow-up e months from the date of receipt of ment.” of the respondents-Corporation is us judicial time but also for failing to rlier imposed upon respondents No. 2 d to Rs.1,00,000/-, to be paid to the ertains to the year 2021 and has been of the respondents-Corporation, in ng the present matter, has caused not only by failing to file a reply but g the course of hearings. While it is deliberate or merely reflective of theless remains wholly inexcusable. ent of retired employees to continue respondent-Corporation is a State s a model employer. tired tion the .e.f. ther up t of on is ing to No. 2 to the been n, in aused ly but e it is ve of sable. ntinue State PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12717 10. merits of the passed by thi case (supra). 11. Rs.1,00,000/ the harassme adjudication date of receip 12. responsibility accordance w 13. respondent- 14. disposed of. February 11 P.C 6 717-2021 In view of the above, without of the case, the present petition is allo by this Court in Karanvir Singh’s ca pra). The respondents No.2 to 4 0,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the assment caused to him as well as for ation of the present matter, within a p receipt of a certified copy of this orde The respondents No.2 to 4 sibility and recover the said amount ance with law. A copy of this order be sent to -Corporation for information and n Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. ary 11, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : ithout further commenting upon the is allowed in terms of the judgments ’s case (supra) and A.P. Sharma’s to 4 shall further pay a sum of to the petitioner as compensation for as for the avoidable delay caused in in a period of three months from the is order. to 4 shall be at liberty to fix mount from the erring official(s) in sent to the Managing Director of the n and necessary compliance. pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No n the ments a’s m of on for sed in m the o fix l(s) in of the stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document