IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

210 CWP-26938-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 23, 2026 Surjit Singh Cheema ....Petitioner VERSUS The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jatinderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent-Markfed to release the retiral dues i.e. leave encashment and security to the petitioner along with interest on the entire period of delayed payment on account of his retirement from service on 31.10.2004, withheld vide order dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) as in consequent of orders dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure P-4) and 22.09.2016 as the petitioner has been exonerated by the revisional authority and there is no recovery order pending against the petitioner.

2. On the previous date of hearing i.e. 19.02.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:-

“Learned counsel for the respondents seeks a short accommodation to obtain complete instructions as to whether the award dated 14.12.2011 was challenged by the respondent- Federation or not, as according to the petitioner, the arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent-Federation was dismissed by the learned Arbitrator on 14.02.2011 (Annexure P-12).

List on 23.02.2026.”

3. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, submits that all admissible retiral dues have been released to the petitioner except an amount of Rs.87,970/-, which was withheld on account of arbitration proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though gratuity has been released, the amounts towards leave encashment and security have not been paid in full. It is further contended that the arbitration claim initiated by the respondent-Federation stood dismissed by the Arbitrator vide award dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure P-12), which has attained finality.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that 300 days’ leave encashment has already been sanctioned vide order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-13). He, however, candidly concedes that the award dated 14.02.2011 was never assailed before any competent forum and has thus attained finality. It is also not disputed that no charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings or criminal case was pending against the petitioner on the eve of retirement.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that on the date of superannuation of the petitioner, there was neither any pending disciplinary proceeding nor any judicial proceeding against the petitioner which could legally justify the withholding of retiral dues. The only ground sought to be pressed into service by the respondents for deducting an amount of Rs.87,970/- was the pendency of arbitration proceedings. However, the said arbitration claim stood dismissed by the learned Arbitrator vide award dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure P-12). Admittedly, the said award was never challenged and has thus attained finality. Once the arbitration proceedings culminated in favour of the petitioner and the award attained finality, there remained no subsisting legal impediment for withholding any part of the retiral dues. The action of the respondents in continuing to withhold the amount thereafter is wholly arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

7. It is trite law that retiral benefits are not a matter of grace or bounty, but a statutory and vested right accruing to an employee upon superannuation. The issue is no longer res integra. The controversy stands squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in A.S.