The SGPC's Service Rules are statutory, making writ petitions against it maintainable; benefits can be withheld pending inquiry only if procedural compliance ensures no prejudice occurs.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-1301-2022.

2. The present petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of speaking order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-6). A further prayer is made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the retiral benefits accrued to the petitioner, including leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund, w.e.f. the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2020, with an interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Sewadar with respondent- SGPC on 22.09.1982. During his service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk and thereafter Assistant. He ultimately retired from service on 31.05.2020 as Assistant/Supervisor. Allegedly, prior to retirement of the petitioner, in order to ensure smooth transition the record of the Holy Saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib in the publication department of respondent-SGPC was checked and it was discovered that they are short by 328. Consequently, a Sub-Committee was formed to investigate into this incident which submitted its report (Annexure R-1). Meanwhile, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld, hence the present petition.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 04.05.2020, the petitioner wrote letters to the respondent-SGPC regarding timely disbursement of his retiral dues as he was due to retire on 31.05.2020. In spite of this, the retiral benefits were not released to him, causing him to serve a legal notice dated 06.09.2021 to the respondent. However, no decision was taken on the said legal notice. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by means of CWP-20928-2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2021, with a direction to the respondent to consider the legal notice dated 06.09.2021 as a representation and decide the same within a period of one month. Thus, the respondent-SGPC passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) stating that the inquiry should be allowed to conclude. Learned counsel submitted that neither the impugned order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-6) nor the reply dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-5) of the respondent to the legal notice indicated initiation of any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner or serving of any show cause upon him. Further, retiral dues cannot be withheld on the premise of a pending inquiry. The act and conduct of the respondent has caused severe financial hardship to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-SGPC contended that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against respondent-SGPC. He submitted that there is no dispute that SGPC is a public authority performing public functions. However, the Service Rules do not find their origin in any Act of the legislature or exercise of the executive powers of the Board. Even though the title uses the term ‘Rules,’ they merely provide for an in-house procedure day to day administrative and executive functions. Relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others , (2023) 4 SCC 498 and Army Welfare Education Society New Delhi vs. Sunil