[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Wazir Singh And Another vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd ... on 20 January, 2026
CWP-38619-2025 -1-
108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-38619-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.01.2026
Wazir Singh and another
... Petitioners
Vs.
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advoate for
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
for the respondents.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
seeking quashing of letters/memos dated 15.04.2025 & 24.07.2025
(Annexures P-2 & P-3 respectively) issued by respondent No.3, whereby
recovery from the retiral dues of the petitioners was ordered and further to
issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the
recovered amount to them and also to pay the interest @24% per annum on
1 of 4
the delayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits including gratuity,
leave encashment and commutation from the date of their retirement till the
date of actual payment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the
petitioners were appointed on 01.02.1982 and 21.12.1997 and after serving
the respondent-Corporation, petitioner No.1 Wazir Singh and petitioner No.2
Dalbir Singh retired on 31.08.2019 and 28.02.2019, respectively, however,
their pensionary benefits were not released on due date. The pension of the
petitioners was released only on 06.01.2022, whereas benefits of Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), leave encashment and commutation were
released on 15.04.2025 and 24.07.2025, as discernible from Annexures P-2 &
P-3 respectively. However, recovery of Rs.2,27,067/- from petitioner No.1
and that of Rs.73,791/- from petitioner No.2 was illegally ordered from the
benefits of DCRG on the ground of shortage of transformer oil and damage to
transformers. Admittedly, on the eve of retirement of the petitioners, there
was no pending chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings against them and the
recovery from their DCRG was made without affording an opportunity of
hearing or issuance of show cause notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical case
came up before this Court for consideration, wherein recovery was ordered on
account of some shortage in the material post-retirement. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgments passed by the Coordinate
Benches of this Court in CWP-11701-2011 titled as Dalip Singh Godara Vs.
2 of 4
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, decided on
23.10.2017 (Annexure P-4), CWP-2393-2015 titled as Hans Raj Vs. Uttar
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, decided on 17.04.2017
(Annexure P-5) and CWP-26406-2015 titled as Subha Chand Vs. State of
Haryana and another, decided on 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-6).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents could not
controvert the fact that at the time of retirement of the petitioners, no
chargesheet or disciplinary proceedings were pending against them and the
impugned recovery was ordered without issuance of show cause notice or
affording an opportunity of hearing.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance.
6. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res
integra. This Court in Dalip Singh Godara's case (supra) has already
considered and decided this issue, by making the following observations: -
"As regards withholding an amount of Rs.2,21,171/- from the
leave encashment, on account of shortage of oil and cost of
missing parts of damaged transformers, Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab
Civil Services, Volume 2, Part -1, deals with the situation of
withholding of retiral benefits of any employee. As per the said
Rule, retiral benefit of a retiree can be withheld only in case any
disciplinary proceeding is pending against the retiree on the date
of retirement. Admittedly, neither there was any enquiry pending
against the petitioner nor was he chargesheeted for any
misconduct at the time of his retirement. It is a settled
proposition of law that mere issuance of show cause notice does
not mean pendency of disciplinary enquiry and issuance of
chargesheet is sine-qua-non for initiation of enquiry under
3 of 4
Punishment & Appeal Rules; and for shortage of oil & cost of
missing parts of damaged transformers, no such type of recovery
can be effected. Impugned instruction dated January 01, 2003
(Annexure P-1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent
by which benefit has been restricted upto a maximum of 5% in
case of breakage and 20% in case of shortage of transformer oil.
As such, action of the respondents in withholding an amount of
Rs.2,21,171/- from leave encashment is arbitrary, illegal and
deserves to be quashed. Ordered accordingly."
7. In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed and the
impugned letters/memos dated 15.04.2025 & 24.07.2025 (Annexures P-2 &
P-3 respectively) issued by respondent No.3, ordering recovery from the
retiral dues of the petitioners, are hereby set aside. The respondents are
directed to release the withheld/recovered amount to the petitioners along
with interest @6% per annum, to be computed after two months of their date
of retirement, in terms of judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court
in A.S. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) Vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1)
SCT 34 till the date of actual payment, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
8. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
20.01.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
