IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

106 CWP-7987-2026 Date of Decision: 11.05.2026 MK Saxena .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Gramin Bank And Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present:- Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG Haryana.

Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent-Bank.

****

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 certiorari for quashing of impugned speaking order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent-Bank, and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner salary and remuneration for the period from 28.08.2019 to 18.07.2022, to fix his pay in the lower grade at a stage commensurate with his past service of over 23 years, and to recompute all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity and leave encashment on the basis of such corrected pay-fixation, along with all consequential benefits and interest.

BRIEF FACTS

2. Briefly the facts of the case is that the petitioner was dismissed from service by the respondent-Bank on 29.12.2014. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 15.07.2015. Following which the petitioner challenged the dismissal before this Court in CWP No. 21651 of 2015, where in this court vide judgment dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure P-1), modified the punishment. The operative portion of paragraph 35 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"Keeping in view regulations 38, ibid, and the discussion and reasoning contained hereinabove and the role attributed to the petitioners qua the delinquency alleged as per charge-sheet, the impugned punishment orders are modified to the extent that the petitioners shall be reinstated into service with reduction to a lower grade immediately to the post held by them. The petitioners shall also be entitled to the consequential benefits arising therefrom but shall not be entitled to any wages for the period they were out of service pursuant to the punishment order."

2.1 The respondent-Bank preferred LPA No. 1343 of 2019 against the said judgment. On 28.08.2019 (Annexure P-2), a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order staying "the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge". As a result of the interim stay, the petitioner could not be reinstated. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner remained out of service from 28.08.2019 solely on account of the stay order obtained by the Bank. Subsequently, on 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-3), the Division Bench directed the Bank to implement the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was reinstated on 18.07.2022. He was placed in a lower grade (from Officer Scale-I to Senior Clerk) and was fixed at the initial stage of the pay scale of that grade.

2.2 The Bank's appeal LPA No. 1343 of 2019, was finally disposed of by a Division Bench on 27.10.2025 (Annexure P-4). The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that once the respondent-petitioner has been allowed to work and thereafter superannuate, it would be inequitable at this stage to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and deny him the benefits, which have already been extended to him under the orders of the learned Single Judge.

7. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that all retrial benefits have been paid to the respondent-petitioner. This also is a ground which persuades us not to embark upon any exercise to adjudicate the legality of the decision of the learned Single Judge at this belated stage.

8. Consequently, this appeal is consigned to the records. Liberty, however, stands reserve to the respondent to point out any further dues, which may be due to him, in terms of the order of learned Single Jud