Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order charging him after his retirement for events that took place 14 years ago during 2010-2011, alleging negligence in execution of Optimum Utilization of Vacant Government Land Scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, ilk Plant, Amritsar, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar J. disposed of the same holding that it violated Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II.
Since the Petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the Court directed the Respondents to pay costs of Rs 50,000 to the Petitioner.
Background
In the present case, the Petitioner joined the Respondent department as Junior Engineer in 1991 then was promoted to Sub Divisional Engineer in 2011 and to Divisional Engineer in 2017 and retired in 2024 after over 34 years of service upon superannuation.
Respondent 4 issued the chargesheet over alleged events that took place 14 years ago during 2010-2011, alleging negligence in execution of Optimum Utilization of Vacant Government Land Scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, ilk Plant, Amritsar.
The Petitioner contended that he was charged for an incident which took place 14 years before the issuance of chargesheet and after the superannuation of the petitioner as the petitioner had retired. Further, he contended that the work could not be completed due to shortage of funds and non-issuance of No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (‘PSPCL’) and thus he could not be held responsible for the loss incurred by the Respondent. Further, leave encashment and gratuity had not been released on account of the charge sheet.
The Respondent, on the other hand, was unable to controvert to the factual position and implication of Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II.
Analysis and Decision
After considering Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II, the Court opined that it barred initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an employee had retired if the matter pertained to an event that happened over four years before the date of initiating the proceedings.
Further, the Court viewed that pension or other retiral benefits do not possess a gratuitous nature, rather such benefits accrue to the retiree by virtue of dedicated service rendered by him to his employer for a significant portion of his life. Thus, the Court held that the approach adopted by the Respondents to deprive the Petitioner of the well-deserved retiral benefits accrued to him, in view of the service rendered by him, ought to be condemned in the strictest terms.
Furthermore, the Court stated that oftentimes, retiral benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner retired. The retired employees and their kin not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival. The denial of pension or withholding it without justifiable cause violated Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, the right to life enshrined in Article 21 was not limited to mere animal-like existence but included the right to live a meaningful life, with dignity in the truest sense of the term.
The Court observed that in a welfare State like Punjab, the very object of granting pension and other retiral benefits was to secure to retirees and their families the means to live a life of dignity, thus, any delay in the disbursement of such benefits particularly when occasioned by the omission or lapse of the State or its instrumentalities would be regarded as a violation of the beneficiaries’ fundamental rights.
Further, the Court opined that since the charge sheet was adjudged to have been issued unlawfully, the petitioner was entitled not only to interest but also to the costs of the present proceedings. The gratuity amount and the leave encashment, which was unjustifiably withheld, should be released to the Petitioner within a period of thirty days, together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum, computed from 29-2-2024 until the date of actual disbursement.
The Court then stated that valuable time of this Court had been unnecessarily consumed in adjudicating the present avoidable litigation, which the petitioner was constrained to initiate on account of the conduct of the Respondents in gross violation of law. The proceedings were wholly contrary to the fundamental objectives of the Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab. Further, since the petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the Court disposed of the petition and directed the Respondents to pay costs of Rs 50,000 and it would be disbursed by Respondent 2 to the Petitioner within thirty days.
[Vasdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5715, decided on 11-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab and Ritik Chatrat Kapur, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
