Sardool Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

The present petition(s) has be e n filed under Article 226/227 o f the Constit u tion of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandam u s directing t h e respondents to release the retiral benefits in the shape o f DCRG, Le a ve encashment, Provident fund etc along with 18% interest fro m the date t h e said fund became due and d irecting the respondents not t o deduct am o unt of Rs.53484/- from the reti r al benefits on account of intere s t given by re s pondent No.4 on the employer s contribution towards CPF as t h e delay in d epositing contribution of Rs. 1 3,206/- is attributable only t o respondent No.4 and also to release the p r ovident fund along with interest. Further, fo r issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside t h e

¶15

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

2

¶17

CWP-9982 - 2021

¶18

resolution d ated 26.07.2019 i.e. order of fo r feiture of two annual incremen t s and the re m arks in the service book regar d ing recovery of Rs.40680/- fro m the retiral benefits to be released to the peti t ioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that t h e deceased p e titioner retired from the service as a Clerk on 31.03.2017 but h i s retiral bene f its were not released. Further t h e employer contribution towar d s CPF beca m e due in November, 1994, how e ver, due to administrative laxi t y of the res p ondents, the recovery of Rs.5 3 484/- has been made from t h e retiral benefits of the petitioner on accoun t of interest given by responde n t No.4 on th e employer contribution towards CPF. The delay in depositing t h e employer c ontribution cannot be fastene d upon the deceased petitione r . Learned co u nsel further submits that the c harge sheet which was issued i n the year 2 0 13 was concluded only in 20 1 9 after a long delay of 6 yea r s which itself is sufficient to suffocate the entire disciplinary proceeding s . Learned counsel further submits that the d eceased petitioner is entitled t o interest on a ccount of delay in releasing the retiral benefits from the due da t e till its reali z ation in terms of terms of the j u dgment rendered by a Full Ben c h of this Cou r t in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punja b 1998 (1) SCT 343 .

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent( s ) submits that, admittedly, the retiral benefit s were released after a gap of fo u r r years; ho w ever, no recovery was effect e d from the deceased petition e toward the amount of ₹53,484/-, which wa s liable on account of interest f o r delayed pa y ment. It is contended that the o nly surviving dispute pertains t o

¶21

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

3

¶23

CWP-9982 - 2021

¶24

the stoppa g e of two annual increments f rom the retiral benefits of t h e deceased p e titioner, amounting to Rs.40,680/-. It is further submitted th a t the deceased petitioner did not challenge the order imposing the forfeiture o f two annual increments, and therefore, the p r esent writ petition deserves to b e dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perus e d the case re c ord with their able assistance. I t transpires that the subject matt e r of dispute in the present writ petition pe r tains to an amount of less th a n Rs.50,000/ - , and the limited issue is with respect to the entitlement of t h e deceased petitioner, through his legal re p resentatives, to interest on t h e delayed pa y ment of retiral dues. 5. It has also been brought to t he notice of this Court that i n compliance of the order dated 20.03.2025 p assed by this Court in CWP No . 7727 of 2025 titled Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others , t h e Governme n t of Punjab has constituted an E mpowered Committee vide lett e r dated 16.0 4 .2025. The said Committee w as established under the Punj a b Dispute Re s olution & Litigation Policy, 2 0 20, which aims to encourage t h e swift resol u tion of disputes, reduce fut u re litigation, and address t h e considerable backlog faced by the Courts. 6. In view of the above witho u t further commenting upon t h e merits of the case, the present petition is di s posed of in the following terms: i. The Empowered Committee constituted under the Punj a b Litig a tion Policy is hereby directed t o treat the present writ petition a s a co m prehensive representation and to consider and adjudicate up o n

¶26

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

4

¶28

CWP-9982 - 2021

¶29

the issue raised herein. In the alt e rnative, the deceased petition e r thro u gh his LRs shall be at liberty t o submit a detailed representati o n setti n g out claim within a period o f four weeks from the date o f recei p t of a certified copy of this ord e r. ii. The Committee shall pass a r e asoned and speaking order aft e r gran t ing an opportunity of personal hearing to the LRs of petitione r , within a period of three months fro m the date of receipt of a certifi e d copy of this order, or from the date o f receipt of the representation o f the L Rs of petitioner, as the case m a y be. Further, the decision tak e n thereof shall be conveyed to the LR s of petitioner. Needless to say, i f the deceased petitioner is found enti t led to the relief sought, the sa m e shall be granted to LRs of petitioner f orthwith.

¶30

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

¶31

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November 17, 2025 P.C Whether speakin g /reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reporta b le. : Yes/No

¶32

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.20 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sardool Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardool Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Piyara Lal Pahuja Vs State of Haryana and Another

Subhash Chander Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhoop Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others