IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 SUMER SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR ****

Present: Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl.A.G, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner, who retired from service on 31.08.2024, including gratuity, leave encashment and all other consequential retiral dues, along with interest accrued thereupon from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual payment, by considering and deciding the representations dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) and reminder dated

30.12.2025 (Annexure P-8).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was placed under suspension merely nine days prior to his retirement vide order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-1), along with a proposal for issuance of a regular charge-sheet relating to an incident of the Election Code of Conduct, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved against the said suspension order, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing CWP-21094-2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.2-Corporation informed this Court that the suspension order had already been withdrawn and the suspension of the petitioner stood revoked vide order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-2). However, on the very same day i.e. 29.08.2024, respondent No.1 issued the retirement order showing the petitioner to be under suspension despite revocation thereof and withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner till finalization of the disciplinary proceedings vide Annexure P-3.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2024 and till date, neither any charge-sheet has been served upon him nor have his retiral dues been released. The petitioner submitted various representations dated 11.11.2024, 20.11.2024, 17.02.2025, 07.03.2025 and 30.12.2025 (Annexures P-4 to P-8) requesting release of his retiral dues; however, despite lapse of considerable time after retirement, no decision has been taken thereupon.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner is decided by the respondent No.1 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

6. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to respondent No.1 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

7. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation/reminder dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-8) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, the consequential benefits shall be released expeditiously in accordance with law.

9. Disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE May 25, 2026

Nisha-1

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether reportable No