107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.02.2026 Ashwani Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Bahul Bunger, Advocate for the respondent(s)-PSPCL.

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 certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-7). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make complete payment of gratuity, regular monthly pension and other pensionary benefits along with interest on delayed pensionary benefits with all other consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner superannuated as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 29.02.2024. The department has withheld the gratuity and regular pension of the petitioner citing the pendency of a Court case titled as ‘Tarlok Chand Vs. PSPCL’, wherein, the petitioner is not even a party. The background relates to a 2019 Lok Adalat award against the PSPCL in a land compensation case. An inquiry was initiated to fix the responsibility for the delay in filing an appeal against the award. The petitioner along with three others (already retired) were named in the inquiry report dated 21.02.2024. No charge sheet was ever issued to him, no documents were ever supplied, even the petitioner was never formally charged in the so called enquiry. Before retirement, the petitioner was pressurized to deposit Rs.14,842/- as his alleged share of excess interest in PSPCL as discernible from Annexure P-2. The petitioner submitted a reply to the inquiry report and an affidavit stating that he would abide by the outcome of the department’s writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award. The Deputy Chief Engineer recommended the release of the petitioner’s pensionary benefits (Annexure P-6). Vide impugned letter dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-7), the Pension Branch through a Superintendent allegedly a non-competent authority rejected the case citing Rule 2(b) & 2(c) of Punjab CSR Vol. II which pertains to pending disciplinary proceedings not Court cases. The letter is issued by the Superintendent who is not the competent authority and it ignores the positive recommendation of the Deputy Chief Engineer (Annexure P-6).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner was duly associated in the inquiry and present during the inquiry proceedings. Further, two writ petitions are pending against the award passed by the learned Lok Adalat in the year 2019 against the respondent- Corporation. The retiral dues of the petitioner has been rightly withheld. However, he could not controvert the fact that on the eve of retirement of the petitioner, there was no pending disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2024. The impugned letter (Annexure P-7) has been issued by invoking Rule 2.2(b) and 2(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. A plain reading of the said provisions makes it evident that they are attracted only in cases where departmental disciplinary proceedings are pending against a government employee. Admittedly, in the present case, no show cause notice or charge sheet was ever served upon the petitioner prior to his retirement and mere pendency of a case, in which the petitioner is not even arrayed as a party, cannot constitute a valid ground for withholding his retiral benefits. The action of the respondents in withholding the retiral dues is unsustainable in law. The position stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court