Punjab-Haryana High Court
Laxmi Chand vs Haryana Agro Industries Corporation ... on 26 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
CWP-18655-2022 -1-
2024:PHHC:059397
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-18655-2022
Date of decision: 26.04.2024
LAXMI CHAND
...Petitioner
VERSUS
HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-20) and the
impugned charge-sheets dated 08.09.2018 (Annexure P-22) and 17.12.2020
(Annexure P-23) issued by the Managing Director of the respondent-
Corporation and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to release all the retiral/pensionary benefits to the petitioner and
also to pay him the minimum pay scale for the post of Mandi Inspector along
with all consequential benefits as he has been working on the said post of
Mandi Inspector on additional charge from 01.10.2005 till his retirement i.e.
31.03.2018.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
2024:PHHC:059397
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where
the petitioner was working as a Class-IV employee in the respondent-
Corporation and he retired on 31.03.2018 and while he was in service, in the
year 1999, there was one charge-sheet issued against him in which punishment
order was passed against him for recovery. Thereafter, a suit for recovery was
filed against the petitioner which was decreed. He further submitted that
thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate
Court, which was also dismissed and against which, an RSA was filed and in
the RSA, execution was stayed by this Court vide Annexure P-21. He further
submitted that as per the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation, the total
outstanding amount which was recoverable from the petitioner even prior to his
retirement was only Rs.1,63,620/- along with interest @ 6% per annum,
whereas after his retirement, the entire retiral benefits have not been released to
the petitioner till date only because of the aforesaid reason. He further
submitted that apart from the above, after the petitioner retired from service,
there were two charge-sheets served upon him by the respondent-Corporation
vide Annexure P-22 and Annexure P-23. He further submitted that the
allegations contained in the aforesaid charge-sheets were that in the year 2010-
2011, which was more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of aforesaid
charge-sheets, there was some less moisture gain and due to which the aforesaid
charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner after his retirement. He further
submitted that there was no authority of law with the respondent-Corporation to
have issued the aforesaid charge-sheets after the retirement of the petitioner
because the master and servant relationship ceased to exist and there is no
provision governing the respondent-Corporation, wherein there is any provision
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
2024:PHHC:059397
for initiating any proceedings after the retirement nor the Punjab Civil Services
Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana were applicable to the respondent-
Corporation at the time when the aforesaid charge-sheets were issued to the
petitioner and therefore, the aforesaid two charge-sheets are liable to be quashed
on the aforesaid ground of being issued without the authority of law.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the respondents submitted that it is correct that the petitioner has retired on
31.03.2018 and so far as the aforesaid two charge-sheets are concerned, the
same were issued to the petitioner after his retirement vide Annexure P-22 and
Annexure P-23. He further submitted that there was no provision for issuance of
any charge-sheet after the retirement since at that point of time, the respondent-
Corporation had not adopted the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to
the State of Haryana. He also submitted that so far as the outstanding amount
against the petitioner while he was in service and which is a decretal amount is
concerned, although execution proceedings have been stayed by this Court in
RSA, the same may be protected so that in case of dismissal of the aforesaid
RSA, amount can be recovered from the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as the issue pertaining to the authority with the respondent-
Corporation to have issued aforesaid two charge-sheets vide Annexure P-22 and
Annexure P-23 is concerned, it is crystal clear that after the retirement of the
petitioner, the aforesaid two charge-sheets were issued to him which were
without the authority of law. It is a settled law that after the retirement of an
employee, the master and servant relationship ceases to exist and even
otherwise also, the subject matter of the charge-sheets was pertaining to the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
2024:PHHC:059397
year 2010-2011. However, there is an exception to the same. The exception is
that in case there is any provision of law which authorizes the organization to
issue charge-sheet, then the same can be done but in the present case, no such
provision has been shown to this Court and even as per the learned counsel for
the respondent-Corporation, there was no provision in the Rules of the
respondent-Corporation nor the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to
the State of Haryana were adopted by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore,
the aforesaid two charge-sheets i.e. Annexure P-22 and Annexure P-23, are
hereby set aside and quashed.
6. So far as the second issue pertaining to the recovery of outstanding
amount of Rs.1,63,620/-, which was a decretal amount along with interest is
concerned, it will be in the interest of justice to direct that the consolidated
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- may be withheld till the decision of the aforesaid RSA.
However, so far as the remaining retiral benefits of the petitioner are concerned,
it was totally unjustified to have withheld the same. The petitioner retired in the
year 2018 and almost 6 years have elapsed that he has not been paid his retiral
benefits. So far as the aforesaid two charge-sheets i.e. Annexure P-22 and
Annexure P-23 are concerned, they were totally without jurisdiction and at the
most, the respondent-Corporation may have withheld some amount pertaining
to the decretal amount, but the entire retiral benefits could not have been
withheld by the respondent-Corporation and in this way, after the retirement of
the petitioner in the year 2018, he was not paid any money.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed.
The respondent-Corporation is directed to calculate and pay the retiral benefits
to the petitioner, along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple), within a period
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
2024:PHHC:059397
of three months from today. However, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as aforesaid
shall be withheld only till the time the aforesaid RSA is decided. In case the
aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within a period of aforesaid three
months from today, then the petitioner shall be entitled for future rate of interest
@ 9% per annum.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner while in service had also worked as Mandi Inspector and discharged
the duties on a higher post and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover versus State of Haryana and another, (1983)
4 SCC 291 and Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh versus Hari Om
Sharma and others, (1998) 5 SCC 87, a Division Bench judgment of this Court
in Balbir Singh Dalal versus State of Haryana, 2002 (4) SCT 422, judgments
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in P. D. Kaushik versus State of
Haryana and others, CWP-16541-2015 and Nihal Singh versus State of
Haryana and others, CWP-7642-2018 and also a Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Subhash Chander versus State of Haryana and others, 2012 (1) SLR
207, the petitioner is entitled for the difference of salary for the time when he
had discharged the duties on a higher post.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the respondents submitted that the aforesaid fact has to be verified from the
record and the register as to whether the petitioner had discharged any duties on
a higher post or not and regarding which, respondent No.1-Managing Director
of the respondent-Corporation will consider the claim of the petitioner and will
pass a speaking order within a period of three months from today.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059397
2024:PHHC:059397
10. Consequently, so far as the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for
grant of difference of pay for the time when he had discharged the duties on a
higher post is concerned, respondent No.1-Managing Director of the
respondent-Corporation is directed to pass a speaking order, within a period of
three months from today after verifying the record and in the light of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court as aforesaid.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
