A writ petition challenging long-standing recovery orders is barred by delay and laches, whereas the statutory entitlement to enhanced gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, overrides any contrary administrative circulars or internal departmental policies.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned office orders dated 17.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) and 08.08.2019 (Annexure P-4), to the extent they effect recovery of Rs.60,297/- from the leave encashment of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the total recovered amount of Rs.80,297/-, comprising Rs.20,000/- deducted from salary and Rs.60,297/- from leave encashment, along with consequential relief of release of the balance amount of enhanced gratuity. A further direction is sought for payment of arrears of salary pursuant to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016, along with interest on the delayed release of retiral benefits including gratuity and leave encashment.

2. Mr. Simardeep Singh Bedi, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place in the paper-book.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner initially joined service as an Irrigation Booking Clerk on 13.08.1979 and superannuated from the post of Ziledar on 30.04.2018 upon attaining the age of retirement. It is contended that the benefit of higher pay scale granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2011 (Annexure P-2), followed by an order dated 17.07.2013 (Annexure P-3) directing recovery of Rs.80,297/-. It is further contended that no recovery was effected during the service tenure of the petitioner; rather, the entire recovery was enforced at the fag end of service, with Rs.20,000/- being deducted from salary and Rs.60,297/- from leave encashment.

3.1 It is vehemently argued that recovery from retiral dues is impermissible in law, particularly in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. Reliance is also placed upon judgments of this Court in CWP-22009-2022 titled Som Nath vs. Punjab State Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Limited decided on 02.04.2025 and CWP-1691-2019 titled Yadbinder Pal Singh vs. Punjab Water Resource Management and Development Corporation Limited decided on 29.08.2023.

3.2 It is further submitted that pursuant to the amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, notified vide S.O. 1420(E) dated 29.03.2018, the ceiling limit of gratuity stands enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-, and since the petitioner retired after the said amendment, he is legally entitled to the enhanced gratuity.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order dated 17.07.2013 has been assailed after an inordinate delay, only in the year 2024, and thus the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is further contended that the petitioner having retired in the year 2018 cannot now reopen settled issues pertaining to recovery. Additionally, it is argued that the notification dated 29.03.2018 issued by the Government of India enhancing the gratuity limit has not been adopted by the respondent department, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of enhanced gratuity.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It emerges that the petitioner was grante