IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 CWP-21843-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Subhash ....Petitioner Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure P-3) vide which the claim of the petitioner for counting of work-charge period from 06.06.1974 till 04.10.1985 towards pensionary benefits has been rejected and further the claim of the petitioner for releasing the withheld amount of Rs.4,84,305/- qua retiral benefits has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to count the work-charge period of the petitioner towards pensionary benefits and further to release the withheld amount of Rs.4,84,305/- to the petitioner qua retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed on 06.06.1974 to the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) on work-charge basis and thereafter, his services were regularized on 05.10.1985. The petitioner was promoted from time to time and thereafter, he retired on 30.06.2014 as Assistant Foreman (AFM). However, the period of work-charge service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 06.06.1974 till 04.10.1985 has not been counted towards pensionary benefits and further, an amount of Rs.4,84,305/- has been withheld by the respondent/Nigam without issuing any charge- sheet or holding any enquiry and as such, the action of the respondents is contrary to the settled law. The petitioner served a demand notice upon the respondents, however, the same was rejected by passing a non-

speaking order on 23.02.2020.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was served a charge-sheet (Annexure R-16) on 01.07.2013, which culminated into the order dated 10.09.2015 vide which the recovery of Rs.1,23,890/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has never challenged the order dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure R-17) which has attained finality. On 06.02.2018, the petitioner has given his consent for deducting Rs.4,84305/- from his pending pensionary benefits and he has given his ‘No Objection’ and undertaken not to claim this amount in future, as discernible from Annexure P-18.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2014 and for almost four years, the retiral benefits of the petitioner was not released and the consent of the petitioner was obtained under economic duress and the petitioner succumbed to the arm twisting tactics of the respondent/Nigam in order to get his pending retiral benefits only.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that out of recovery of Rs.4,84,305/-, an amount of Rs.1,23,890/- was deducted on account of order of punishment dated 10.09.2015, vide which the punishment of recovery, of the said amount from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, was imposed. The petitioner has not challenged the charge-sheet (Annexure R-16) and the order of punishment (Annexure R-17), however, with regard to the remaining amount, no charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings were initiated and withhold the retiral benefits without any statutory mandate is illegal and contrary to the settled law.

6. It is no longer res integra that in case the disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against an employee on the date of retirement, the employer would be well within its right to withheld the gratuity as well as the leave encashment. However, the Ho