-1- CWP-14923-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP No.14923 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 Narinder Singh Malik .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Satyam Singla, Advocate and Ms. Rashika Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned reply dated 21.04.2026 submitted by respondent No.2, whereby claim of the petitioner for release of retiral benefits has been declined. The petitioner has also sought various other reliefs, as set out in the writ petition. 2. On 06.07.2026, this Court has passed the following order:- “On 14.05.2026 following order was passed:- “It is inter alia contended that initially a complaint was made against the petitioner regarding unauthorised consultancy with a foreign entity dated 20.01.2015, Annexure P-3. In that regard, Executive Council resolution dated 08.12.2023, Annexure P-23, was passed for issuing a chargesheet against him, but no action was taken on it by the University. Subsequently, on another complaint, OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP-14923-2026 the petitioner was issued chargesheet vide memorandum dated 24.01.2020, Annexure P-13. He submitted his reply to it dated 10.11.2020, Annexure P-14, but did not hear anything from the University in that regard thereafter. The petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.07.2025. His retiral benefits including gratuity, commutation of pension and twenty per cent leave encashment have been withheld for no reason. There is no provision for withholding leave encashment, even if any disciplinary enquiry is pending against an employee. 2. On asking of the Court, Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3/University and seeks time to get instructions in the matter. 3. Adjourned to 06.07.2026.” 2. In compliance with the aforesaid order, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the 20% leave encashment, which had been withheld, has now been ordered to be released to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2026 passed by respondent No. 3. He further submits that the first Inquiry Officer appointed in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-13) did not proceed with the inquiry for more than five years. It is further submitted that a fresh Inquiry Officer has now been appointed on 18.03.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2025 and is facing extreme hardship, as he and his family members are entirely dependent upon the retiral benefits. He submits that although the charge-sheet was issued on 24.01.2020, as discernible from Annexure P-13, more than six years and six months have elapsed since its issuance, yet the inquiry has not attained finality. Consequently, the petitioner is being subjected to indefinite disciplinary proceedings, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another (2015) and by this Court in Khairati Lal Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP-9606-2022, decided on 13.10.2025. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CWP-14923-2026 4. In view of the above, respondent No. 2 is directed to file an affidavit explaining why the disciplinary proceedings have been allowed to remain pending for more than six years. Respondent No. 2 shall also indicate the steps taken to ensure compliance with the judgment rendered by this Court in Khairati Lal (supra) and file the affidavit on or before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Adjourned to 22.07.2026.” 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has produced affidavit of Dr.Vijay Kumar, Registrar, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, in compliance with the aforesaid order, which is taken on record subject to just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner has been withdrawn and a formal office order dated 17.07.2026 has been issued by respondent No.2, as discernible from Annexure R-2/2. The decision to issue a second charge-sheet to the petitioner has also been withdrawn by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that all admissible dues have been ordered to be paid to the petitioner. It is also submitted that instructions, in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Khairati Lal v. State of Haryana and others, 2025(4) Law Herald 2708, have been circulated to all concerned and shall be scrupulously followed in future. He, thus, submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the aforesaid factual position, submits that the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of the delayed payment of retiral benefits. 6. It is a trite of law that retiral benefits are not a matter of grace or bounty, but a statutory and vested right accruing to an employee upon OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CWP-14923-2026 superannuation. The controversy stands squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein it has been unequivocally held that any delay in release of pensionary or retiral benefits beyond a reasonable period of two months from the date they become due would entail payment of interest to compensate the retiree for such delay. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances noticed above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to release all the admissible retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Needless to say, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum to be calculated after expiry of two months from the date of retirement till actual realisation in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa’s case (supra). ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 22 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.23 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document