Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

The present petition has been f iled under Article 226/227 of t h e Constitutio n of India for issuance of a w r it in the nature of certiorari f o r quashing t h e impugned action of the resp o ndent-authorities in withholdi n g the amoun t of GPF and not granting t he benefit of pension, witho u t n assigning a n y reason and further in not ca l culating the service rendered o daily wag e s basis towards pension in v iew of letter dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Finance Department to Govt. of Haryan a . Further pra y ing for issuance of a writ in t h e nature of mandamus directi n g the respon d ent-authorities to release the a m ount of GPF along with intere s t at the rate o f 18% per annum in view of t he instructions dated 20.02.20 0 2 n issued by G ovt. of Haryana and further dir e cting the respondents to sancti o n the pensio n after calculating the service r endered on daily wage basis i view of le t ter (Annexure P-5) and to gr a nt the benefit of increment o n account of qualifying the Fire Fighting C ourse as one similarly situat e d employee h as already been granted the similar benefit along with all consequent i al benefits.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that t h e petitioner r etired from the service on 3 1.10.2015. The gratuity, lea v e encashmen t was released without any delay however provident fu n d amounting t o Rs.1,26,050/- was released o n 18.05.2017 whereas pensiona r y contributio n amounting to Rs.1,12,004/- r e leased on 09.09.2016. As suc h , the delay i n releasing all retiral dues of h usband of petitioner entitles t h e

¶30

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

3

¶32

CWP-1065 4 -2016

¶33

petitioner f o r grant of interest on delayed p ayment in terms of the judgme n t rendered b y a Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Enginee r (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343 . Learned counsel furth e r submits th a t past service of petitioner as a daily wager from 1980 to 20 0 3 has not be e n counted for calculating the q ualifying service for pensiona r y benefits. T h e case of the petitioner is squ a rely covered by the Full Ben c h judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 25 and Division B e nch judgment of this Court i n Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(3) SCT 362. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti o ner further sought increment o n qualifying the fire fighting course, as t he similarly situated employ e e Sh. Ram N arain Singh, who was appoi n ted later and has been grant e d regular inc r ement even prior to passing t he qualifying test, whereas, t h e petitioner h as been discriminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner furth e r submits th a t he would be satisfied if h i s case is considered under t h e Haryana St a te Litigation Policy, 2025.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Sta t e Counsel submits that he has n o objection i f the case of the petitioner is r e ferred and considered under t h e Haryana St a te Litigation Policy.

¶35

5. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for t h e

¶36

parties.

¶37

6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that t h e Governme n t of Haryana has notified the H aryana State Litigation Polic y ,

¶38

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

4

¶40

CWP-1065 4 -2016

¶41

2025, with the primary objective of ensu r ing an efficient and accountab l e grievance-r e dressal framework within th e administration, and with t h e overarchin g aim of reducing pendency before the Courts by curbi n g avoidable a nd repetitive litigation. Further m ore, in terms of the aforenot e d Policy, an E mployees’ Grievance Redressa l Committee has been constitut e d for the sp e cific purpose of addressing and resolving employee-relat e d grievances i n a structured and time-bound m anner.

¶42

7. In view of the above submissions, and in light of the judgme n t rendered b y this Court in CWP-2457-2025 , titled as H.C. Sharma vs Stat e of Haryana and others , decided on 30. 0 7.2025, the present petition i s disposed o f in the following terms:

¶43

i. The Employees’ Grievance R edressal Committee constitut e d under the Haryana State Li t igation Policy, 2025 is here b y directed to treat the present w rit petition as a comprehensi v e representation and to consider and adjudicate upon the iss u e raised herein. In the alternativ e , the petitioner shall be at liber t y to submit a detailed representa t ion setting out his claim within a period of two weeks from the d ate of receipt of a certified co p y of this order.

¶44

ii. The Committee shall pass a reasoned and speaking order i n terms of A.S. Randhawa case (supra) and Kesar Chand case (supra), after granting an opp o rtunity of personal hearing to t h e

¶45

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

5

¶47

CWP-1065 4 -2016

¶48

petitioner, within a period o f three months from the date o f receipt of a certified copy o f this order, or from the date o f receipt of the representation o f the petitioner, as the case m a y be. Further, the decision take n thereof shall be conveyed to t h e petitioner. Needless to say, if t he petitioner is found entitled t o the relief sought, the same sha l l be granted to him forthwith.

¶49

5. Pending miscellaneous appli c ations, if any, shall also sta n d disposed o f .

¶50

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶51

November 14, 2025 P.C

¶52

Whether speakin g /reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reporta b le. : Yes/No

¶53

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.14 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrit Kaur Bedi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shelly Devi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nasra Warsi Vs Punjab Waqf Board and Another

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Piyara Lal Pahuja Vs State of Haryana and Another

Subhash Chander Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others