122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.04.2026 Amarjeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 4 to release the service benefits including salary for the period of illegal dismissal, gratuity, leave encashment and all consequential retiral benefits along with interest and further directing respondents No.1 to 4 to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary on 15.10.1988 in respondent No.3- Multipurpose Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. and retired after rendering service for nearly three decades. It is submitted that the petitioner vide representation dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) brought to the notice of the Managing Committee certain financial irregularities allegedly committed by the Branch Manager of the Central Co-operative Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner was falsely implicated and served with a charge-sheet dated

20.11.2018 (Annexure P-4), culminating in his dismissal from service. It is further submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.7746 of 2021 titled Amarjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-7), whereby, the Managing Committee was directed to proceed afresh from the stage of consideration of the enquiry report. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fatehgarh Sahib also held that the Managing Committee had acted illegally. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-8). It is contended that the impugned action is contrary to the Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Rules of 1997’) and despite the procedure prescribed therein, respondent No.3 failed to act in accordance with law. As such, the petitioner claims entitlement to all service benefits, including salary.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel at the outset submits that this Court in CWP No.1422 of 2026 titled as Samarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 05.03.2026 has considered the issue of maintainability of the writ petition for violation of the Service Rules of 1997 and held that the aforesaid rules are not legally enacted and not enforceable and thus, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal fo the record, it transpires that the petitioner served the respondent Society for over three decades and was subsequently, dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner claims entitlement to service benefits, including salary for the period of dismissal, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Service Rules of 1997 contending that the dismissal was in violation of the statutory procedure. However, it is observed that these Rules are not statutory in nature and have not been validly enacted, as held by this Court in Samarjit Singh’s case (supra)

5. This Court in CWP-1422-2026, titled ‘Samarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 05.03.2026 has categorically held the 1997 Service Rules to be ultra vires the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1961 Act’). The rule-making power in this regard has been bestowed upon the State Government under Section 85(2)(xxxviii) of the 1961 Act. However, the same has been illegally sub-delegated to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Rule 28 o