IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1382-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 21.01.2026 Bhagat Singh Chahal ....Petitioner Versus Controlling Authority, Sangrur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to release the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner as per the order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and further to direct the respondents to release the payment of gratuity as per the order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Appellate Authority along with interest @ 10% per annum, after one month of the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 31.08.2018, till its actual payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined the services of respondent No.2 on 07.04.1978 and rendered long, continuous and unblemished service till his retirement on 29.02.2012 as Warehouse Manager. Despite retirement, the petitioner was illegally denied payment of gratuity, constraining him to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Vide order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P-1), the Controlling Authority allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed respondents No.2 and 3 to release the gratuity of the petitioner along with interest @ 9% within the stipulated period. The appeal filed by the petitioner culminated into passing of a detailed order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) by the Appellate Authority, whereby the petitioner’s entitlement to gratuity under the Act was affirmed and the order of the Controlling Authority was modified to grant interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 01.04.2012, i.e. one month after retirement. He further submits that the writ petition i.e. CWP No.7585 of 2021 filed by respondents No.2 and 3 against the said order was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2025 and, in any case, the controversy involved in the present petition already stands settled by this Court in CWP No.16778 of 2022, titled as Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another vs Balwant Singh and others decided on 27.02.2025, in terms whereof a bunch of writ petitions, including CWP No.7585 of 2021, titled as Punjab State Warehousing Corporation vs Bhagat Singh Chahal and others, were disposed of on 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-3). In spite of such final adjudication, the petitioner was compelled to file an application dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-6) before the Controlling Authority for enforcement of the order. Even thereafter, the respondents attempted to revive the withdrawn writ petition by filing CM No.9792-CWP of 2025 in CWP No.7585 of 2021, which was ultimately disposed of being not pressed (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the office order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexures P-9) and the order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) clearly show that gratuity along with interest has already been released to other similarly situated retired employees, yet the petitioner alone has been denied the same benefit without any justification. Such selective and prolonged non-compliance on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory, particularly when similarly situated retired employees have been extended the same benefit.

3. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submits that there is no willful or intentional non-compliance of the order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) and the delay in release of gratuity is due to administrative and financial formalities, including verification of records and availability of funds. He further submits that the respo