(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:6)

(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:6)

(cid:6) CWP(cid:5)20207(cid:5)2016 Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Sushil Singla ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:23) (cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:19)ti(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:14)

(cid:16)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:31) (cid:23) Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate for the respondent(cid:5)U.T.

Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Advocate for the respondent(cid:5)PUNSUP.

(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:14)!(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:6)"(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)ti#

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P(cid:5)14) and further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release all the arrears of house rent allowance which was withheld arbitrarily w.e.f. 06.09.1996 till May, 2010 to the petitioner along with 18% interest on delayed payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent(cid:5)Corporation on 29.06.1984 and retired on 31.08.2014. In August, 1996, the House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to ‘HRA’) of the petitioner was already stopped on the pretext that his wife is working in the State Bank of India who has been allotted official accommodation from the bank without issuing any notice. The petitioner represented the authorities for grant of HRA on the ground that other organizations like Markfed, are giving HRA to their employees in spite of the employee’s spouse is working with any other Government organization and has been provided with the official accommodation. The petitioner continuously agitated his claim towards HRA and the respondent(cid:5)Corporation sought details from Markfed. On 13.09.2006, the Markfed replied that the employees of the Markfed are individually and separately entitled to the HRA even if the spouse is also allotted Government accommodation. On 18.08.2006, the petitioner made a representation. The Board of Directors of the respondent(cid:5)Corporation on 06.05.2010 (Annexure P (cid:5)13) passed a resolution and allowed the claim of the petitioner towards HRA. On the basis of the same, the petitioner is seeking the arrears towards the HRA with effect from 06.09.1996.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent(cid:5)Corporation submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner's HRA was stopped on 06.09.1996 and petitioner only in the year 2006, raised a grievance regarding the same. His request was considered and rejected twice but petitioner has never approached this Court and only after a resolution was passed on 06.05.2010, the petitioner is now re(cid:5)agitated the claim in the year 2016.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was being paid HRA till 06.09.1996 and it was stopped on the ground that his wife is employed and getting HRA from the