206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Multan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, Asstt.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Tanvir Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Devender Punia, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3, The Pundri Cooperative Marketing- cum-Processing Society Ltd., Pundri, to release payment of interest @ 12% per annum on the retiral benefits of the petitioner, which were withheld from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2015 until the date of actual realisation i.e. 13.02.2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that after rendering uninterrupted service from 1975 until his superannuation on 31.07.2015, his legitimate retiral benefits were withheld without any justifiable cause for a period exceeding two and a half years. He further submitted that the belated release of the dues on 13.02.2018, were procured only after protracted litigation including a contempt petition, inherently entitled the petitioner to compensatory interest. Relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Padmanabhan Nair vs. State of Kerala (1994) 2 SCC 501 and of this Court in J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR (Civil) 355, he submitted that the jurisprudential principle is settled: when the State or its instrumentality retains and utilises an employee's money beyond the due date, it constitutes a wrongful deprivation that must be remedied by payment of interest, which operates as rent for the use of those funds. He submits that the issue of maintainability raised by the respondent is a mere technical shield to avoid substantive liability, and that the writ petition, seeking enforcement of a constitutional right to property and livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g)

and 21, is perfectly maintainable.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3, raised a fundamental and threshold objection regarding the very maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that respondent No.3, The Pundri Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., is a society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and does not, in law or in fact, qualify as "State" or "other authority" within the expansive meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. He strenuously argued that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor demonstrated any deep or pervasive financial or administrative control by the State Government over the society's functioning, which is the essential litmus test established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The counsel further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Satrughan Nishad (2003) 8 SCC 639, where it was held that even a 50% government shareholding is insufficient to clothe a cooperative society with the character of a State instrumentality. Further the counsel relied on the judgement of a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Rajbir Singh & Ors. (CWP-10234-2014 & connected matters), decided on 05.09.2018, wherein writ petitions against similar primary cooperative societies were dismissed outright on the ground of non-maintainability, observing that such societies discharge no statutory public duty and are beyond the pale of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance it transpires that the sole question that arises for determination is whether the writ petition is maintainable against respondent No.3, a Cooperative Society?

5. The law on the maintainability of writ petitions against Cooperative Societies is well-settled. A Constitu