Teja Singh And Others v. Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. Th. Chariman Cum M.D

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.12.2025 TEJA SINGH AND OTHERS ... Petitioners Vs.

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPN. LTD. TH. CHARIMAN CUM M.D AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashir Gulati, Advocate for Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate for respondent-PSPCL.

******* 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 mandamus directing the respondents to release dearness allowances especially in view of the letter dated 25.01.2016 issued by the Government of Punjab (Annexure P-2) along with interest @ 9% per annum.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submitted that the petitioners had been serving the respondent-corporation, and subsequently retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. The Government of Punjab while accepting the recommendation of the pay commission, decided to grant dearness allowance to its employees and

-2pensioners by enhancing from 113% to 119% w.e.f. 01.07.2015 vide its letter dated 25.01.2016 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, on 05.02.2016, respondentcorporation adopted and implemented the aforesaid instructions issued by the Government of Punjab vide circular No.01/2016 (Annexure P-3). Inspite of repeated representations, the petitioners have not been granted the admissible benefits in terms of the aforesaid instructions. The petitioners thereafter, served a legal notice dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-4) which remains unheeded till date. Further, identically circumstanced employees have filed CWP-29-2023 titled as Kuljeet Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others and in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the respondents grant the benefit of dearness allowance @119% within a period of three months, this Court, vide order dated 10.01.2023, disposed of the same. 3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-corporation is not in a position to controvert the aforesaid facts and also the order passed by this Court in Kuljeet Singh's case (supra).

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. 5.

 

       

             

      

!"# $%&'in light of the order passed by this Court in Kuljeet Singh's case (supra) (          

   

 

 

  

   

-3-    



 )



 (

      

!"#$%&' 

 

   *    

    

 

  



    

  





   

  [ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ] 04.12.2025 JUDGE shruti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No