High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/4690/2024disposed of

Surjan Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2026-05-13Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar6 pages

# $% #

& $ '

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG Punjab-State.

Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

((((

#"$ %&'( With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity the facts are taken from CWP-4690-2024.

)

$* +, $* -$

/ & !0

! %

-6 "

& 1 & ** *& & * & * & ' *'

!!*

* '

!0 *

.'* ' 4 '

06 * & &

7!* 7

0 77 & *

*0 !07

0 '*

8 & !0

0 9

:7!* 0 9

' 8 4:

!0 * & *

*0 !07

7 !0*

0 & *

;

< # 7 ' * !7 ;

= !

8 &

* .< -?

! 7

7!* &

-6

0 77

% 1* @ 1 ' &

' 7

!07

!0+! &&+-

1 0

&,&+-

1 * '

7 ;

0 2 *0 '

! "##$$%"#$##!

A0 $& 3,

-6 $ &

0 &

0 7 *

!07

*7 1 7

0 77 2 *0 ' 7

& '

( &

! &)

! "*#%+"#$#, Power of Attorney(s) on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4 have been filed by Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate, in both the petitions respectively, which are ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place. He refers to the reply filed on behalf of respondents and submits that as and when any decision to pay the arrears of revised pay/pension is taken by the Government of Punjab, the same shall be implemented as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondentCorporation to pay any amount beyond the instruction and guideline issued by the Government of Punjab. Learned counsel for respondents No.

2 to 4 is not in a position to controvert the fact that as far as entitlement of the petitioner regarding enhanced gratuity is concerned, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Som Nath (supra), and further the issue regarding revised benefits in terms of 6th Pay Commission are concerned, the case of the petitioner is indistinguishable as from that of the petitioners in Nirmal Singh Dhanoa and others (supra).

! !

! *

* & !

& 7

A0 $& 3,& 1

-6 &

0 / 7

7 Som Nath (supra). As far as the release of the revised benefits in terms of the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission is concerned, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in Nirmal Singh Dhanoa (supra). The respondents have denied the 6th pay Commission's revised benefits only on the ground that no decision in this regard has been taken by the Government of Punjab. This issue has already been settled by this Court in Nirmal Singh Dhanoa (supra). 6.

In view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of. The respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the balance amount of the arrears of enhanced gratuity within a period of two weeks along with interest @ 6% per annum, calculated from two months after the date of his retirement till actual realization and further, regarding the revised benefits, both the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of Nirmal Singh Dhanoa (supra).

, $

0 9 :

!0 &

* 0

! !

*1 ! %

7 ** !!* 46&

0& ** *

( )*"+"

< ! %+ B +"

< *

B +"