202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS RAJPAL SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present Mr. None for the respondents. * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. Notice of motion was issued on the judgment and Others Vs. 2. We find that the learned Single Bench had decided the Writ Petition vide impugned judgment dated 15.07.2019 relying on the judgment passed in the case of (White Washer) etc. formal undertaking given in the prescribed format, the amount cannot be withheld and recovered from the petitioner. directed to be released. 3. We find that the judgment passed in (White Washer) (Supra) as it was a case of judicial officer IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V/s. RAJPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion was issued on 12.11.2024 ment passed by this Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh; JT 2016(7) SC 409 We find that the learned Single Bench had decided the Writ Petition vide impugned judgment dated 15.07.2019 relying on the judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab and Others (White Washer) etc. ; (2014) 8 SCC 883 to hold that merely on the basis of formal undertaking given in the prescribed format, the amount cannot be withheld and recovered from the petitioner. directed to be released. We find that the judgment passed in (White Washer) (Supra) was distinguished in the case of as it was a case of judicial officer IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1739-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12th of May, 2025 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..…...Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA H.S. GREWAL for the appellants. on 12.11.2024 in this case relying High Court of Punjab & Haryana JT 2016(7) SC 409. We find that the learned Single Bench had decided the Writ Petition vide impugned judgment dated 15.07.2019 relying on the judgment State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih hold that merely on the basis of formal undertaking given in the prescribed format, the amount cannot be withheld and recovered from the petitioner. The same was, therefore, We find that the judgment passed in Rafiq Masih was distinguished in the case of Jagdev Singh as it was a case of judicial officer. We also noticed that after Rafiq Masih Suresh Kumar 2025.05.15 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1793-2019 retirement, recovery orders have been issued against the respondent which otherwise also cannot be said apex Court in (2012) 8 SCC 417 State of Punjab & Others 195 and Thomas Daniel 4. The Supreme Court has also reiterated now the same view in SLP No. 5918 of 24 titled as 2025 INSC 449 5. In view thereto, the issue is no more find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Bench. The may, in view of the latest judgment of the Appeal stands 6. Al accordingly. May 12, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2019 (O&M) retirement, recovery orders have been issued against the respondent which otherwise also cannot be said to be justified in view of the settled law by the apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 417 which was examined by the Supreme Court afresh in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Others; The Supreme Court has also reiterated now the same view in SLP No. 5918 of 24 titled as Jogeshwar Sahu 2025 INSC 449. In view thereto, the issue is no more find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Bench. The present Appeal is also belated by 58 days. may, in view of the latest judgment of the stands dismissed accordingly. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [H.S. GREWAL 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : retirement, recovery orders have been issued against the respondent which to be justified in view of the settled law by the Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal; which was examined by the Supreme Court afresh in Rafiq Masih (White Washer); 2015 (1) SCT State of Kerala & Others; 2022 INSC 498. The Supreme Court has also reiterated now the same view in Jogeshwar Sahu Vs. District Judge, Cuttack; In view thereto, the issue is no more res integra and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Appeal is also belated by 58 days. Be that as it may, in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, the present pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE H.S. GREWAL] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.05.15 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document