The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the respondents were justified in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioners due to pending disciplinary proceedings initiated before their superannuation, the petitioners were entitled to interest on the retiral dues for the delay in payment.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Vide this single judgment, both the above-mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of together as the identical question of law is involved therein.

2. The petitioners, in both these petitions, have sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the payment of all the retiral dues to them, along-with interest thereon @ 18% per annum, from the date of accrual till the actual payment thereof with a further prayer for issuing an interim direction to respondent No.4 to take a final decision on the enquiry report dated 05.12.2018 in respect of the charge-sheets dated 10.03.2017 as served to them.

3. For the sake of precision and brevity and also to avoid the repetition of facts, it would be expedient to cull out the common facts as canvassed by both the petitioners in their respective petitions. The petitioners had remained employed with the respondent-Federation and have already superannuated. The services of the employees of the respondent-Federation are governed by the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Common Cadre Service) Rules, 1990 (here-in-after referred to as "the Service Rules") and the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1990 (here-in-after referred to as "the Punishment and Appeal Rules"). They were issued separate charge-sheets dated 10.03.2017 with the allegations of having caused monetary loss to the respondent-Federation and in pursuance of the same, an enquiry had also been conducted against them. The Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 05.12.2018, held that the charges, levelled against them, stood proved. However, the decision qua the said disciplinary proceedings has not yet been taken whereas the said proceedings in respect of some of the similarly placed employees have already been finalized. The respondents have withheld their retiral dues, i.e the amounts of gratuity and leave encashment and have, thus, wrongly deprived them of their said dues, as admissible to them on their retirement and they are suffering financial hardship on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in taking the final decision qua the said disciplinary proceedings as pending against them.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply in both the petitions, by way of the affidavits of Mr. Baljinder Singh, Joint Registrar-2, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, wherein he has deposed that no interest of the State is involved in these petitions as the actual dispute lies between the petitioners and respondents No.3 and 4 because the petitioners have sought the afore-claimed relief from these respondents only and the respondent-Federation, being a body corporate under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, has its own independent legal existence.

5. It is worth-while to mention here that in pursuance of the order as passed by this Court in both these petitions on 14.01.2021 whereby respondents No.3 and 4 were directed to explain the delay caused in completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, these respondents have placed the affidavits of the Law Officer of the respondent-Federation on the record and the depositions, as made by him therein, shall be discussed and dealt with while discussing the merits of both these writ petitions separately in the later part of this judgment.

6. I have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.K.Banka, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab; Mr.Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Mehardeep Singh Advocate and Mr. Tripjeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in these petitions and have also perused the files thoroughly.

7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has conceded that the respective amounts of the retiral benefits have already been released to both the petitioners during the pendency of