IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 Date of Decision: February 03, 2026 Jasvir Singh since deceased through his legal representative Veerjit Kaur .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate for respondent No.2 (through V.C.)

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to release the arrears of gratuity and leave encashment withheld to the tune of Rs.1,47,128/- with interest with effect from the date of retirement i.e.

30.09.2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is the widow of a retiree who retired from service on 30.09.2015 as a Clerk. The husband of the petitioner had rendered satisfactory service throughout his career. However, a few days prior to his retirement, he was charge-sheeted and placed under suspension on 23.09.2015 on the allegation of negligence while working as Supervisor in the Fees Department, Bus Stand, Nabha. The said disciplinary proceedings remained pending and were never concluded during his lifetime. The husband of the petitioner expired on 28.03.2021. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him stood abated. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of retirement, an amount of Rs.1,47,128/- was withheld from the retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner. He was compelled to furnish an undertaking dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that the said amount would be released upon recovery of the same from the concerned contractor. It is argued that the undertaking was obtained under financial duress, as the retiral benefits were released only after submission of the said undertaking. It is further submitted that respondent No.2-Council had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,89,793/- against the contractor, namely Sh. Satnam Singh, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2024. In view of the decree having been passed in favour of the respondent-Council, the loss allegedly suffered stands recovered and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to release of the withheld amount of Rs.1,47,128/-. Learned counsel also refers to the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure R-2/1) and submits that there is no justification for continued withholding of any portion of the gratuity of the petitioner’s late husband.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the amount in question was withheld strictly in terms of the undertaking voluntarily furnished by the husband of the petitioner. It is further submitted that upon recovery of an amount of Rs.94,550/- from the contractor pursuant to court orders on 16.12.2016 in the office of the Municipal Council, a sum of Rs.90,000/- was released to the late husband of the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It emerges that the charge- sheet was issued to the husband of the petitioner on 23.09.2015, whereas he was due to retire on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, he expired on 28.03.2021, yet the disciplinary proceedings were neither concluded nor brought to a logical end and remained pending for more than five years. It is trite law that the disciplinary proceedings are required to be concluded within a reasonable despatch as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali Versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, 2015

5. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC 570 Speaking through Justice B.P Jeevan Reddy observed that, “10. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half y