IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

268 CWP-25897-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Budh Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Managing Director and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pankaj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for Ms. Ekom Pal Sagoo, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the speaking order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-4). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to release the gratuity to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% per annum and also to pay interest @ 8% on delayed payment of retiral benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, having served the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited with diligence for over 24 years, retired on 31.07.2024. Despite submission of all requisite documents on time, his gratuity remains withheld by the respondent/Corporation and other retiral dues such as GPF and leave encashment, were released only after substantial delay. The petitioner made multiple representations, including one dated 13.02.2025, seeking release of the gratuity and interest on delayed payments. However, on failure of the respondents/Corporation to act upon the same, he approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-6746- 2025, which was disposed of on 11.03.2025 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Despite issuance of a legal notice dated 25.05.2025, the respondents eventually passed a speaking order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that GPF and leave encashment were released on 08.10.2024 and 14.11.2024, respectively, although the petitioner has retired on 31.07.2024. There is no denial to the fact that at the time of retirement no departmental enquiry or any criminal proceedings before any competent Court of law was pending and as such, in the absence of any charge-sheet in the departmental proceedings or framing of charges by the competent Court of law, the withholding of the gratuity by the respondent/Corporation is not backed by any legislative mandate. He further submits that the complaint, which was filed by one Harnek Singh attached with the reply as Annexure R-1, does not indicate the date, time and place, on which the petitioner has demanded bribe. Further, till date even FIR has not been registered in spite of passing of almost eighteen months. He further contends that the law on the issue is well settled that gratuity is a statutory and vested right and cannot be withheld merely on the ground that an inquiry is pending, unless specific conditions prescribed under law are fulfilled. Therefore, the action of the respondent/Corporation in withholding the gratuity is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the short reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5, which is taken on record. She submits that gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld on account of pendency of the complaint (Annexure R-1). Till date, the Vigilance Bureau of the Government of Punjab, has not issued the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and the case of the petitioner would be processed as and when the ‘No Objection Certificate’ is issued by Vigilance Bureau. As such, the gratuity of the petitioner has rightly been withheld by the respondent/Corporation on account of pendeny of complaint and the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. It is a settled principle of law that the position is to be seen on the day when