CWP-20943 IN THE 252(15 cases) 1. Gurdas Singh State of 2. Bhajan Singh State of 3. Darshan Kumar State of 4. Balvir Singh State of Punjab and others 5. Harjinder Singh State of Punjab and others 1 20943-2023& connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH cases) CWP Date of Decision: Gurdas Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Bhajan Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Darshan Kumar VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Balvir Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Harjinder Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20943-2023 Date of Decision: August 21, 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-22785-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-22849-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-22978-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-22983-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent , 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 6. Harnail Singh State of Punjab and others 7. Ranjit Singh State of Punjab and others 8. Inderpal Singh State of Punjab and others 9. Randhir Singh State of Punjab and others 10. Balwinder Singh State of Punjab and others 2 20943-2023& connected matters CWP Harnail Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Ranjit Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Inderpal Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Randhir Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Balwinder Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP-24464-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-24473-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-24475-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-24503-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-20938-2023 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner ndents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 CWP-20940 11. Ranjit Singh State of Punjab and others 12. Gurjant Singh State of Punjab and others 13. Ajaib Singh State of Punjab and others 14. Kulwant Singh State of Punjab and others 15. Nirmal Singh 3 20943-2023& connected matters 20940-2023 Ranjit Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Gurjant Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Ajaib Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Kulwant Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CWP Nirmal Singh VERSUS .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-12923-2023 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-29649-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-29769-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent CWP-29893-2022 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner .....Respondents .....Petitioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 State of Punjab and others CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. writ petitions as they arise sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP 2. of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for directing the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner(s) and also pay 12% interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment. 3. in all the writ petitions are seeking their retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on judgment passed by fu Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 disbursing the retiral benefits. 4. with regard to the maintainability of the present pe Cooperative Society is running into losses and there is paucity of funds, as 4 20943-2023& connected matters State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG Punjab- **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of all the above writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP 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, er or directions especially in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for directing the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner(s) and also pay 12% interest on the delayed payment of gratuity and leave encashment. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioners in all the writ petitions are seeking their retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on judgment passed by fu Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 disbursing the retiral benefits. In the reply filed by respondents No.4 and 5 objection is raised with regard to the maintainability of the present pe Cooperative Society is running into losses and there is paucity of funds, as .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner(s). -State. This order of mine shall dispose of all the above-mentioned from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-20943-2023. 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, er or directions especially in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for directing the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner(s) and also pay 12% interest on the delayed payment of gratuity nsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioners in all the writ petitions are seeking their retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on judgment passed by full Bench in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468 on the ground of delay in In the reply filed by respondents No.4 and 5 objection is raised with regard to the maintainability of the present petition and further that the Cooperative Society is running into losses and there is paucity of funds, as .....Respondents mentioned from a similar factual matrix. However, for the 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, er or directions especially in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for directing the respondents to pay the gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner(s) and also pay 12% interest on the delayed payment of gratuity nsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioners in all the writ petitions are seeking their retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner A.S. Randhawa on the ground of delay in In the reply filed by respondents No.4 and 5 objection is raised tition and further that the Cooperative Society is running into losses and there is paucity of funds, as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 such, respondent No.5 is not in a position to disburse the retiral dues of the petitioner(s) and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions. 5. parties. 6. is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further the service rules of the respondent No.5 provides t society are entitled to claim gratuity in terms of Rule 19(A), Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997. Further, in terms of the judgment of full Bench of this Court in Commissioner(Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 1 and in Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and others it has been held that : 5 20943-2023& connected matters such, respondent No.5 is not in a position to disburse the retiral dues of the petitioner(s) and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions. I have heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the It transpires that the right of an employee for claiming gratuity is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further the service rules of the respondent No.5 provides that the employees of the cooperative society are entitled to claim gratuity in terms of Rule 19(A), Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997. Further, in terms of the judgment of full Bench of this Court in Commissioner(Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(4) RCR and in CWP No.27527 of 2017Krishan Kant Versus Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and others it has been held that :- “37. There are three categories of Service Rules which can be framed to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Society. In first category, a registered Society under the Societies Act can frame its own Service Rules to regulate the service conditions of its employees. The Rules may be binding between the Society and its employees. The second category of the Rules is those rules which are formulated under Section 85(2) (xxxviii), which empower the Government to frame Service Rules for any Co-operative Society or societies with regard to qualifications for employees of a Society or class of society and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by Societies. Such Rules so framed have the force of Statute and are deemed to be such, respondent No.5 is not in a position to disburse the retiral dues of the petitioner(s) and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions. I have heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the It transpires that the right of an employee for claiming gratuity is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further the service hat the employees of the cooperative society are entitled to claim gratuity in terms of Rule 19(A), Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997. Further, in terms of the judgment of full Bench of this Court in Jasbir Singh vs. Commissioner(Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(4) RCR CWP No.27527 of 2017Krishan Kant Versus Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and others, wherein egories of Service Rules which can be framed to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Society. In first category, a registered Society under the Societies Act can frame its own Service Rules to regulate the ployees. The Rules may be binding between the Society and its employees. The second category of the Rules is those rules which are formulated under Section 85(2) (xxxviii), which empower the Government to frame operative Society or for class of societies with regard to qualifications for employees of a Society or class of society and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by Societies. Such Rules so framed have the force of Statute and are deemed to be such, respondent No.5 is not in a position to disburse the retiral dues of the I have heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the It transpires that the right of an employee for claiming gratuity is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further the service hat the employees of the cooperative society are entitled to claim gratuity in terms of Rule 19(A), Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1997. Further, in Jasbir Singh vs. Commissioner(Appeals), Jalandhar Division and others, 2011(4) RCR CWP No.27527 of 2017Krishan Kant Versus Punjab State , wherein egories of Service Rules which can be framed to regulate the conditions of service of the employees of the Society. In first category, a registered Society under the Societies Act can frame its own Service Rules to regulate the ployees. The Rules may be binding between the Society and its employees. The second category of the Rules is those rules which are formulated under Section 85(2) (xxxviii), which empower the Government to frame for class of societies with regard to qualifications for employees of a Society or class of society and the conditions of service subject to which persons may be employed by Societies. Such Rules so framed have the force of Statute and are deemed to be PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 7. Rules are statutory and binding, in nature enforce the same would be maintainable in view of settled law. 6 20943-2023& connected matters incorporated as a part of the Statute, whereas this principle does not apply to the first category of Rules framed by the Society because those Rules merely govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They are of the nature of the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. But the second category of Rules is the Statutory Rules and they have the fo there is third category of Rules known as Common Cadre Rules. These rules could have been framed under Section 84 of the Punjab Act which provide that an apex society may suo motu and when required to do so by the Registrar constitute a common cadre of all, or specified class of employee in the service of that society or in the service of the central societies which are members of the apex society or in the service of the primary societies which are members of the apex society. Sub-section (2) further provides that when a common cadre of employee is constituted under sub Registrar shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any agreement, settlement or award determine the pay scales and allowances admissible to such employees and Apex Society shall make rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of such employees with the prior approval of the Registrar. Therefore, the Common Cadre Rules frame Registrar are also having the statutory colour and stand on the same footing as that of the Statutory Rules.” The Full Bench of this Court has already held that the Service Rules are statutory and binding, in nature and, thus, the writ of mandamus to enforce the same would be maintainable in view of settled law. corporated as a part of the Statute, whereas this principle does not apply to the first category of Rules framed by the Society because those Rules merely govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They are e Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. But the second category of Rules is the Statutory Rules and they have the force of the statute. Similarly, there is third category of Rules known as Common Cadre Rules. These rules could have been framed under Section 84-A of the Punjab Act which provide that an apex society may suo motu and when required to do so by the Registrar shall constitute a common cadre of all, or specified class of employee in the service of that society or in the service of the central societies which are members of the apex society or in the service of the primary societies which are members of the apex section (2) further provides that when a common cadre of employee is constituted under sub-section (1), the Registrar shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any agreement, settlement or ine the pay scales and allowances admissible to such employees and Apex Society shall make rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of such employees with the prior approval of the Registrar. Therefore, the Common Cadre Rules framed under sub-section (2) by the Registrar are also having the statutory colour and stand on the same footing as that of the Statutory Rules.” The Full Bench of this Court has already held that the Service and, thus, the writ of mandamus to enforce the same would be maintainable in view of settled law. corporated as a part of the Statute, whereas this principle does not apply to the first category of Rules framed by the Society because those Rules merely govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They are e Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. But the second category of Rules is the rce of the statute. Similarly, there is third category of Rules known as Common Cadre A of the Punjab Act which provide that an apex society may suo shall constitute a common cadre of all, or specified class of employee in the service of that society or in the service of the central societies which are members of the apex society or in the service of the primary societies which are members of the apex section (2) further provides that when a common section (1), the Registrar shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any agreement, settlement or ine the pay scales and allowances admissible to such employees and Apex Society shall make rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of such employees with the prior approval of the Registrar. Therefore, section (2) by the Registrar are also having the statutory colour and stand on the The Full Bench of this Court has already held that the Service and, thus, the writ of mandamus to PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 8. jurisdiction can be invoked in case of violation of Rules. In the present case the gratuity is being is running into losses and however, the salary of the petitioner(s) wrongly fixed, however, no particulars have been placed on record for the same. The issue with regard to society running into losses t been dealt with by this Court in CWP Kulbir Singh Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. This Court has specifically held that the employees cannot be penalized on account of any m 9. Gratuity Act, 1972. If an employee is entitled for gratuity even under the service rules, then it is option of an employee to choose ei payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or from the service rules, which is beneficial to them. 10. of retiral benefits to a delay that is attributable solely to the action of the employer. A Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, the following was held: “9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the 7 20943-2023& connected matters In view of the judgment mentioned herein jurisdiction can be invoked in case of violation of Rules. In the present case the gratuity is being denied on the ground that the respondent No.5 is running into losses and however, the salary of the petitioner(s) wrongly fixed, however, no particulars have been placed on record for the same. The issue with regard to society running into losses t been dealt with by this Court in CWP-26520 Kulbir Singh Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. This Court has specifically held that the employees cannot be penalized on account of any mismanagement or losses suffered by the respondents. An employee has a right to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. If an employee is entitled for gratuity even under the service rules, then it is option of an employee to choose ei payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or from the service rules, which is beneficial to them. In view of the fact that the controversy stands settled, the denial of retiral benefits to a delay that is attributable solely to the action of the employer. A Full Bench of this Court in Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be done in a timely manner. Any delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, the following was held: “9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the In view of the judgment mentioned herein-above, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in case of violation of Rules. In the present case denied on the ground that the respondent No.5-Society is running into losses and however, the salary of the petitioner(s) wrongly fixed, however, no particulars have been placed on record for the same. The issue with regard to society running into losses to deny the retiral dues has 26520-2014 and connected cases in Kulbir Singh Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. This Court has specifically held that the employees cannot be penalized on ismanagement or losses suffered by the respondents. An employee has a right to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. If an employee is entitled for gratuity even under the service rules, then it is option of an employee to choose either for the payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or from the service rules, In view of the fact that the controversy stands settled, the denial of retiral benefits to a delay that is attributable solely to the administrative Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the amount due. Speaking through Justice N.K. Sodhi, the following was held: “9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the above, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in case of violation of Rules. In the present case Society is running into losses and however, the salary of the petitioner(s) wrongly fixed, however, no particulars have been placed on record for the same. The o deny the retiral dues has 2014 and connected cases in Kulbir Singh Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another. This Court has specifically held that the employees cannot be penalized on An employee has a right to claim gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. If an employee is entitled for gratuity even under the ther for the payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or from the service rules, In view of the fact that the controversy stands settled, the denial administrative A.S. Randhawa Supg. opined that disbursement of pension and other benefits payable at retirement must be delay over a period of two months, qua the said disbursement would entitle the retired employee to claim interest on the “9. Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer i time. circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement down by the Apex the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated and, in our opinion, the interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, circumstances of a particular rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 SCC 429. 11. with a direction to respondents/concerned authority to disburse the arrears of salary, gratuity and leave encashment. within a period of three months and after calculation, the same should be paid within next one month. directed to pay interest on the delayed payment towards retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, salar date of filing of present petition, in terms of the judgments and S.K. Dua 12. disposed of. 13. 8 20943-2023& connected matters Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer i time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement down by the Apex Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (su the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated in our opinion, the only way to interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of interest, it should, in our view, be circumstances of a particular case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the above, all the civil writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents/concerned authority to disburse the arrears of salary, gratuity and leave encashment. The said amount shou within a period of three months and after calculation, the same should be paid within next one month. Respondents/concerned authority is further directed to pay interest on the delayed payment towards retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, salary and leave encashment @ 6 % interest per annum, from the date of filing of present petition, in terms of the judgments and S.K. Dua (supra). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retirer in proper As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement which time limit has been laid in M. Padmanabhan Nair's case (supra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated only way to compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of in our view, be generally 12% unless the case warrant the payment of a higher rate which may extend to even 18%.”(emphasis added) Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana ala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the above, all the civil writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents/concerned authority to disburse the arrears of The said amount should be calculated within a period of three months and after calculation, the same should be Respondents/concerned authority is further directed to pay interest on the delayed payment towards retiral benefits i.e. y and leave encashment @ 6 % interest per annum, from the date of filing of present petition, in terms of the judgments A.S. Randhawa Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands this order be placed on the file of connected Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the n proper As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two which time limit has been laid pra). If the State commits any default in the performance of its duty thereby denying to the retiree the benefit of the immediate use of his money, there is no gainsaying the fact that he gets a right to be compensated compensate him is to pay him interest for the period of delay on the amount as was due to him on the date of his retirement. Again, as to what should be the rate of 12% unless the case warrant the payment of a higher Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgments S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana ala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 In view of the above, all the civil writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents/concerned authority to disburse the arrears of ld be calculated within a period of three months and after calculation, the same should be Respondents/concerned authority is further directed to pay interest on the delayed payment towards retiral benefits i.e. y and leave encashment @ 6 % interest per annum, from the A.S. Randhawa Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands this order be placed on the file of connected PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20943 cases. August 21, 2025 P.C 9 20943-2023& connected matters , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.02 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document