IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 Shamsher Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Registrar Agricultural Co-Operative Societies and Another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Tejveer Singh Saggu, Advocate and Mr. Jodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned resolution dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P-4), passed by the respondents, whereby his claim for retiral dues was not considered for lack of supporting documents. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner, including leave encashment and gratuity, as well as wages for the period w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to

15.06.2015 (till retirement), along with interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2015 after serving the respondent No.2- Society for 33 years and 10 months. However, the respondent-Society has not paid the gratuity and the leave encashment to the petitioner, in terms of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter for short called as the “1997 Rules”). As such, the petitioner is also entitled to interest on account of delay in releasing the gratuity and leave encashment.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the present writ petition against respondent No.2-Society, deserves to be dismissed as the 1997 Rules have not been adopted by it. Therefore, present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sultanpur, U.P. vs. Satrughan Nishad and others, JT 2003(8) SC 235”. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in “Samarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-1422-2026, decided on 05.03.2026”, wherein the 1997 Rules were concluded to be invalidly enacted and therefore, not enforceable.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner has claimed gratuity and other retiral benefits under the 1997 Service Rules.

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 of the Punjab State Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (in short ‘1963 Rules’). Thus, it was concluded that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not remain maintainable as such Rules cannot create a legally enforceable right. Moreover, the Administrative Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Punjab had filed an affidavit in Samarjit Singh (supra) wherein it was specifically stated that the 1997 Service Rules are not statutory in nature. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“24. The Administrative Secretary, Department of Co- operation, Punjab, in his affidavit (supra), has categorically admitted that the 1997 Service Rules were neither framed by the State Government in the exercise of its powers under Section 85 of the 1961 Act, nor were they issued as statutory rules thereunder. It was further deposed that the 1997 Service Rules do not possess the character of delegated legislati