CWP-8640- IN THE 261 Karamjit Singh State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of order in the nature of interest at the rate of 12% in view of full bench judgment of in case titled view of the fact that though the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 but benefits have been released to him in June 2022 i.e. after a period of 13 years 2. petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3 in July, 1987 storekeeper petitioner on 08.11.2002 and 02.09.2005 respectively from service vide order dated 10.08.2007 and penalty of recovery Rs.9,32,364/ in regard to charge stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect along with recovery. 1 -2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP- Date of Decision: Karamjit Singh VERSUS Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab Mr. Vikas Singh and Ms. Manisha, Advocates for Federation. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of in the nature of mandamus directing the interest at the rate of 12% in view of full bench judgment of in case titled as A.S Randhawa Versus State of Punjab view of the fact that though the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 but benefits have been released to him in June 2022 i.e. after a period of 13 years Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3 in July, 1987 storekeeper. Further, two different charge petitioner on 08.11.2002 and 02.09.2005 respectively from service vide order dated 10.08.2007 and penalty of recovery Rs.9,32,364/- was also imposed in charge- in regard to charge-sheet dated 08.11.2002, he was imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect along with recovery. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -8640-2024 Date of Decision: September 11, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS ...Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Punjab. Vikas Singh and Ms. Manisha, Advocates for respondent The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or directing the respondents for payment of interest at the rate of 12% in view of full bench judgment of this Court passed A.S Randhawa Versus State of Punjab 1997(3) SCT 468 in view of the fact that though the petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 but retiral benefits have been released to him in June 2022 i.e. after a period of 13 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3 in July, 1987 as a rent charge-sheets were issued against the petitioner on 08.11.2002 and 02.09.2005 respectively and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 10.08.2007 and penalty of recovery of -sheet dated 02.09.2005. Further, sheet dated 08.11.2002, he was imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect along with recovery. , 2025 .....Petitioner ...Respondents respondent- of or respondents for payment of this Court passed in retiral . contends that as a sheets were issued against the was dismissed of r, sheet dated 08.11.2002, he was imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect along with recovery. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8640- Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the Board of Directors but the same were dismiss 01.09.2008. Feeling and 69 of 2009, which were allowed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide two separate orders dated 18.10.2010 and 01.11.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 challenged the said order by way of filing civil writ petition No.2039 dismissed on 3.2.2011. Against the order of this Court, respondent No.3 filed LPA No.732 of 2011 which was decided with l petition before the State Government. Ultimately, in terms of order passed in LPA, two revisions petitions under Section 69 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, were filed before the Government against the orders of punishment dated Thereafter, both the revision petitions were allowed by holding that no recovery can be made from the petitioner on the administrative side and remanded the case to Board of Directors. Learned counsel for t further submits 10.06.2022. 3. petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years and as such, he is not entitled to interest on the delayed payment and prays for dismissal of the present petition. 4. Rs.11,32,542/ Directors in its meeting on 2 -2024 Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the Board of Directors but the same were dismissed vide two separate orders dated 01.09.2008. Feeling aggrieved, he filed revisions petitions bearing Nos.60 and 69 of 2009, which were allowed by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide two separate orders dated 18.10.2010 1.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 challenged the said order by way of filing civil writ petition No.2039 dismissed on 3.2.2011. Against the order of this Court, respondent No.3 filed LPA No.732 of 2011 which was decided with l petition before the State Government. Ultimately, in terms of order passed in LPA, two revisions petitions under Section 69 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, were filed before the Government against the orders of punishment dated 10.8.2007 and appellate order Thereafter, both the revision petitions were allowed by holding that no recovery can be made from the petitioner on the administrative side and the case to Board of Directors. Learned counsel for t further submits that retiral dues were released to the petitioner only on 10.06.2022. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years and as such, he tled to interest on the delayed payment and prays for dismissal of the present petition. It is not in dispute that petitioner received an amount of Rs.11,32,542/- on 10.06.2022 in terms of the resolution passed by Board of Directors in its meeting on 17.01.2022. The bare reading of the resolution Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the Board of ed vide two separate orders dated aggrieved, he filed revisions petitions bearing Nos.60 and 69 of 2009, which were allowed by the Additional Registrar (G) Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide two separate orders dated 18.10.2010 1.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 challenged the said order by way of filing civil writ petition No.2039-2011, which also stands dismissed on 3.2.2011. Against the order of this Court, respondent No.3 filed LPA No.732 of 2011 which was decided with liberty to file revision petition before the State Government. Ultimately, in terms of order passed in LPA, two revisions petitions under Section 69 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, were filed before the Government against the orders of 10.8.2007 and appellate orders dated 01.09.2008. Thereafter, both the revision petitions were allowed by holding that no recovery can be made from the petitioner on the administrative side and the case to Board of Directors. Learned counsel for the petitioner that retiral dues were released to the petitioner only on , learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years and as such, he tled to interest on the delayed payment and prays for dismissal of It is not in dispute that petitioner received an amount of on 10.06.2022 in terms of the resolution passed by Board of 17.01.2022. The bare reading of the resolution Thereafter, the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the Board of ed vide two separate orders dated aggrieved, he filed revisions petitions bearing Nos.60 (G) Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide two separate orders dated 18.10.2010 1.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 challenged the said order , which also stands dismissed on 3.2.2011. Against the order of this Court, respondent No.3 iberty to file revision petition before the State Government. Ultimately, in terms of order passed in LPA, two revisions petitions under Section 69 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, were filed before the Government against the orders of dated 01.09.2008. Thereafter, both the revision petitions were allowed by holding that no recovery can be made from the petitioner on the administrative side and he petitioner that retiral dues were released to the petitioner only on , learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner continued to sleep over his rights for several years and as such, he tled to interest on the delayed payment and prays for dismissal of It is not in dispute that petitioner received an amount of on 10.06.2022 in terms of the resolution passed by Board of 17.01.2022. The bare reading of the resolution PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8640- further reveals that Board in its meeting held on 05.08.2014 item No.157.11 formed a committee and after examining concluded that petitioner is not at fault and complicity of the regard to alleged misconduct is not proved. However, this r of the Committee the Board. Thereafter, the Board through agenda No.188.14 in its meeting dated 11.02.2020 r Advocate on the panel of respondent No.3 and it was decided that once the punishment order passed against the petitioner have been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to salary, admissible dues like leave enc gratuity etc. 5. to the petitioner. The delay has only accrued due to the administrative action. The petitioner was given clean chit firstly by the revisional authority on 18.02.201 concluded that the petitioner is not at fault, as such, the delay in releasing the retiral dues would entail interest of 6% per annum in terms of rendered by a Full Bench of this C 6. a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on delayed amount towards his retirement till the date of release of his retiral benefits p.a in terms of the judgments three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. 3 -2024 further reveals that Board in its meeting held on 05.08.2014 item No.157.11 formed a committee and after examining concluded that petitioner is not at fault and complicity of the regard to alleged misconduct is not proved. However, this r of the Committee could not be implemented due to the expiry of the term of the Board. Thereafter, the Board through agenda No.188.14 in its meeting dated 11.02.2020 recommended to obtain an opinion from a Senior Advocate on the panel of respondent No.3 and it was decided that once the punishment order passed against the petitioner have been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to salary, admissible dues like leave enc gratuity etc. In view of the above factual position no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. The delay has only accrued due to the administrative action. The petitioner was given clean chit firstly by the revisional authority on 18.02.2014, thereafter on 05.08.2014, the committee was constituted and concluded that the petitioner is not at fault, as such, the delay in releasing the retiral dues would entail interest of 6% per annum in terms of rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in A. In the view of the above, the present petition is a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on delayed amount towards retiral benefits to be calculated after two months is retirement till the date of release of his retiral benefits p.a in terms of the judgments A.S. Randhawa three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. further reveals that Board in its meeting held on 05.08.2014 through agenda item No.157.11 formed a committee and after examining all the factors concluded that petitioner is not at fault and complicity of the petitioner with regard to alleged misconduct is not proved. However, this recommendation ould not be implemented due to the expiry of the term of the Board. Thereafter, the Board through agenda No.188.14 in its meeting ecommended to obtain an opinion from a Senior Advocate on the panel of respondent No.3 and it was decided that once the punishment order passed against the petitioner have been set aside, the petitioner is entitled to salary, admissible dues like leave encashment, In view of the above factual position no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. The delay has only accrued due to the administrative action. The petitioner was given clean chit firstly by the revisional authority 5.08.2014, the committee was constituted and concluded that the petitioner is not at fault, as such, the delay in releasing the retiral dues would entail interest of 6% per annum in terms of judgment A.S. Randhawa (supra). In the view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on to be calculated after two months of is retirement till the date of release of his retiral benefits at the rate of 6% . Randhawa (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. through agenda all the factors petitioner with ecommendation ould not be implemented due to the expiry of the term of the Board. Thereafter, the Board through agenda No.188.14 in its meeting ecommended to obtain an opinion from a Senior Advocate on the panel of respondent No.3 and it was decided that once the punishment order passed against the petitioner have been set aside, the ashment, In view of the above factual position no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. The delay has only accrued due to the administrative action. The petitioner was given clean chit firstly by the revisional authority 5.08.2014, the committee was constituted and concluded that the petitioner is not at fault, as such, the delay in releasing judgment with a direction to the respondent(s)/competent authority to pay the interest on of % within a period of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8640- 7. disposed of. September 1 P.C 4 -2024 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. September 11, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document