IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

106 CWP-33903-2024(O&M)

Date of decision:08.04.2026 Kashmir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Vineet Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab-State.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

CM-4234-CWP-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record short reply by way of affidavit of Sukhjit Singh Brar, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Zira, on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.

In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, short reply by way of affidavit is ordered to be taken on record.

Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.

MAIN

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release arrears of salary for 5 months i.e. Rs.202995/- along with interest on the delayed payments as raised in legal notice dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) as payable to the petitioner on his retirement from the services of respondent-Society in view of the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in AS Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, cited as 1997(3) SCT 468. Further, directions may be issued to respondents to release the arrears of salary along with interest on the delayed payments in time bound manner.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in the present case is governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Agriculture Service Societies Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1997 Service Rules’).

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record with their able assistance, this Court finds that the petitioner has sought to invoke the provisions of the 1997 Service Rules for the purpose of claiming retiral benefits.

4. Moreover, 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 legislation in terms of Section 85 of the 1961 Act, and consequently, there was no requirement for them to be laid before the State Legislature. It is settled law that where a statute confers a power on a named authority, it is prima facie intended to be exercised only by that authority to the exclusion of all others, unless the parent statute permits further delegation expressly or by necessary implication.

xx xx xx

29. In view of the foregoing discussion and adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Government c