225 (2 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.02.2026

1. CWP-21596-2022 Tarvinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ....Respondents

2. CWP-14149-2022 Tarvinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in both cases.

Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Simrandeep S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 in both cases.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. This judgment shall dispose of both the abovementioned petitions as they arise from a similar factual background. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.21596-2022.

2. The present petition(s) have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In CWP No.21596-2022, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @18% per annum on account of delayed disbursement of retiral benefits to the petitioner. In CWP-14149-2022, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 10.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 whereby an amount of Rs.6,36,420/ has been ordered to be recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-Corporation as a Lineman in the year 1985 and was subsequently promoted to Junior Engineer in 2009. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2018 as a Junior Engineer. On the eve of his retirement, no disciplinary, judicial, or criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner. As such, there was no embargo on releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner. However, the retiral dues, in its entirety, were paid to the petitioner after a delay of more than three years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on account of the delayed release of the retiral benefits, in terms of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench Court in A.S. Randhawa Supdg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT

343

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while deciding the legal notice/ representation of the petitioner, a speaking order dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) was passed, wherein an attempt was made to justify the delay on the ground that the material issued in the name of the petitioner was not handed over by him at the time of retirement. However, no charge sheet was ever served upon the petitioner in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.6,36,420/ has been ordered to be recovered from the gratuity on account of shortage of material issued in the name of the petitioner. The concerned officer has failed to see the relevant record which clearly states that the material has been handed over/refunded by the petitioner. After receiving the same from the petitioner, a document (Annexure P-7 in CWP-14149-2022) was issued to him, which has also been countersigned by one Rajesh Kumar and Lekhraj, SDO. Moreover, memo dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P-8 in CWP- 14149-2022) issued by the Additional Superintending Engineer, East Division, Amritsar to the Assistant Executive Engineer states that the same has been handed over to Rajesh Kumar and a list has also been appended with respect to return of surplus material. In the absence of any inquiry confirming the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, there is no cause to order recovery of any kind from his gratuity.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation submits that the petitioner had not followed the procedure/drill prescribed by the respondent-Corporation regarding the utilization of the material. As such, his misconduct is duly approved. However, she could not controvert the fact that no charge sheet was ever issued to