Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined a batch of writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by retired employees of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). The petitions challenged the withholding of retiral benefits and assailed a speaking order passed by SGPC, raising issues concerning the statutory nature of service rules framed under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 and the maintainability of writ jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the service and retirement of the petitioners, who were appointed as Sewadars with SGPC and subsequently promoted to clerical and supervisory posts. One of the representative petitioners superannuated in May 2020. Prior to retirement, a physical verification of Holy Saroops of Shri Guru Granth Sahib in the publication department allegedly revealed shortages. Consequently, SGPC constituted a Sub-Committee to inquire into the matter. Pending the inquiry, the retiral benefits of the petitioners, including gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment, were withheld. Despite issuance of a legal notice seeking release of dues, no decision was taken initially, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court. Thereafter, SGPC passed a speaking order refusing to release the retiral benefits, which became the subject matter of challenge.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the action of SGPC in withholding retiral benefits was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence. It was argued that no charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners prior to their retirement, as required under the Service Rules framed by SGPC in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The counsel submitted that retiral benefits cannot be withheld merely on the basis of a pending or contemplated inquiry. It was further contended that SGPC is a statutory body and its Service Rules have statutory force, thereby making the writ petitions maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondent SGPC raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, submitting that the relationship between SGPC and its employees is contractual in nature and does not involve a public law element. It was argued that the Service Rules are not statutory and that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked in service-related disputes. On merits, the counsel submitted that serious discrepancies were found during verification of Holy Saroops, including shortages and improper maintenance of records. The counsel contended that a detailed inquiry was conducted by a Sub-Committee constituted by SGPC, in which the petitioners participated, and the inquiry report held them responsible. Based on the inquiry findings, the Executive Committee of SGPC passed a resolution to withhold the retiral benefits.
Observation of the Court:
The Court first addressed the objection regarding maintainability and observed that the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee is a statutory body constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. Referring to Section 69 of the Act, the Court noted that the Executive Committee is empowered to determine service conditions of its employees, thereby conferring statutory character upon the Service Rules framed by SGPC. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mewa Singh and others v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, the Court reiterated that “Service Rules framed by SGPC in exercise of statutory power have the force of law and any violation thereof would make SGPC amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the dispute was purely contractual in nature, observing that once service conditions are governed by statutory rules, the relationship between employer and employee cannot be treated as a private contract. The Court further relied on Diljit Singh Bedi v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that SGPC is “a creation of statute and is bound to act within the four corners of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.”
On the issue of withholding retiral benefits, the Court observed that no charge sheet had been served upon the petitioners prior to their retirement, nor was any disciplinary proceeding initiated in accordance with the Service Rules. The Court noted that the impugned speaking order merely referred to a pending inquiry without compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. It observed that “retiral benefits cannot be withheld on the basis of a contemplated or incomplete inquiry, particularly in the absence of initiation of disciplinary proceedings before superannuation.”
The Court emphasised that adherence to statutory procedure and principles of natural justice is mandatory in service matters governed by statutory rules. It held that failure to follow the prescribed procedure renders the impugned action legally unsustainable and causes undue hardship to retired employees who are entitled to timely disbursement of post-retirement dues.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court held that the Service Rules framed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee have statutory force and the writ petitions were maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court set aside the impugned speaking order withholding the retiral benefits. SGPC was directed to release all retiral dues of the petitioners in accordance with law, within the stipulated period.
Case Title: Kanwaljit Singh v. Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandhak Committee
Case No.: CWP-1301-2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Arun Singla, Adv. B. S. Guliani, Adv. Prateek Sodhi, Adv. Vanita Sapra Kataria
Counsel for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. D. S. Patwalia with Adv. Tajeshwar Singh, Adv. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Adv. Sullar M. S. Virk, Adv. Mrigank Sharma and Adv. Sehaj Navjeet Singh
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
