210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 ADARSH KUMAR ....Petitioner Versus PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORTION AND ANR ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the respondents-PSCSC.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure P-24) passed by the respondent-Corporation, whereby the petitioner's claim for release of service/retiral benefits was illegally and erroneously rejected on the ground that civil suits for recovery were pending whereas all the civil suits have already been decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 15.07.2015/13.01.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the extent that the benefit of salary for the period of compulsory retirement till reinstatement i.e., from 18.05.1998 to 10.03.2003, was granted to a similarly situated employee, namely Sant Singh, but was illegally and arbitrarily denied to the petitioner merely on the ground that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent, despite the petitioner being identically situated in all respects.

A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to release all financial/retiral benefits of the petitioner, including gratuity and leave encashment along with interest @ 9% per annum; salary for the period from 18.05.1998 to 10.03.2003 (i.e., from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement); the difference of salary for the suspension period from 22.11.1995 to 18.05.1998; benefits under the ACP scheme; arrears of salary for the period from 10.03.2003 to 30.11.2008; and revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, along with all consequential benefits including revised gratuity and leave encashment after re-fixation of pay, together with applicable interest as per the prevailing bank rate.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1975. On 24.01.1996, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the alleged ground of embezzlement of paddy for the crop year 1994-95 in his capacity as a supervisory officer. An identical charge sheet was issued to one Sant Singh, Inspector In-charge and custodian of the same stock. After the inquiry, the petitioner and Sant Singh were compulsorily retired from service on 18.05.1998 vide Annexure P-3. Against the separate order of the same date, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Committee, vide order dated 04.02.1999, remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority with the observation that the punishment awarded to the petitioner and Sant Singh was very harsh and that the miller was contractually bound to mill the paddy. Thereafter, on 11.03.2003, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.03.2023 (Annexure P-4) reinstated the petitioner into service and imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the period when the petitioner remained out of service shall not be adjudicated.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again filed an ap- peal before the Appellate Authority, which was partly accepted in his favour vide order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-5) and the punishment was reduced from stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect to two increments with cumulative effect. On similar lines, the appeal of Sant Singh was partly accepted. The petitioner filed CWP-16893-2010 and Sant Singh