IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.09.2025 Tajinder Singh Sodhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, claiming the following reliefs:-

“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside Order dated 14.04.2012 (Annexure P-9) whereby the petitioner has been punished with a 100% cut in his pension in a most unfair, illegal manner as well as Order dated 24.01.2013 passed by Respondent (ANNEXURE P-11) and Order dated 30.12.2020 (ΑNNEXURE P-14) passed by Respondents, whereby the review in the case of the petitioner with respect to his pension has been declined, despite the fact that the petitioner who was roped in an FIR in the year 2012 was acquitted vide judgment dated 10.10.2018 and thereafter, no further appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab.

and/or Prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension and other retiral dues including DCRG, Gratuity etc. which has been withheld by the Respondents with interest @

12% Ρ.Α.

and/or Prayer for issuance of direction to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his pension and other retiral dues and to release the same forthwith, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

and/or Any other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be issued/

passed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already submitted various representations, i.e., annexures P-15, P-16, P-17 and P-19 to the respondents for relief claimed in the instant petition. However, no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representations. He further submits that the representations were submitted by the petitioner, who is not aware of the technicalities of law and at this state, he will be satisfied, in case the present writ petition is considered as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and some directions are issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation in a time bound manner.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and has no serious objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the respondent No. 2 is directed to treat the writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and to decide all the issues involved in the writ petition by passing a speaking and well reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

7. Needless to observe that the respondent No. 2 shall take into consideration the relevant rules/instructions as well as the judgments, which have been mentioned in the writ petition.

8. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to any consequential relief, the same may also be allowed to him forthwith.

9. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

04.09.2025 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)

amit rana JUDGE