115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Controlling Authority Sangrur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rishoo Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pushpanjali Bisht, Advocate for Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

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 mandamus directing respondent No.1 to release the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner as per order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Annexure P-2). Further, for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the payment of gratuity as per the order dated 19.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Appellate Authority along with interest @ 10% per annum after one month of the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 01.08.2008 till its payment or to consider application dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure P-6) and pass a speaking order in terms of Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as Accounts Clerk on 13.06.1977 and retired as Senior Assistant on 30.06.2008. He applied for gratuity before the Controlling Authority which was allowed on 03.01.2020 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, respondents No.2 & 3 filed an appeal against an order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the learned Controlling Authority and the petitioner also filed an appeal challenging the same. Both the appeals were decided by the learned Appellate Authority together vide order dated 19.08.2020 (Annexure P-2). Appeal filed by respondents No.2 & 3 was dismissed and it was held that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order of the Controlling Authority was modified to grant interest @ 10 % per annum one month after his retirement w.e.f. 01.08.2008. He further submits that the writ petition bearing CWP No.3785 of 2021 filed by respondents No.2 & 3 was withdrawn on 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) in view of order dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-4). 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. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the office order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) 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 wilful or intentional non-compliance of the order dated 19.08.2020 (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 respondents are a public body and the payment process requires approvals from the competent authority. He further contends that the case relied upon by the petitioner vide Annexures P-9 is factually distinguishable and was cleared at different stages d