← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13308/2026disposed of

Manju Rani v. The Appellate Authority Haryana State Warehousing Corporation And Another

2026-04-30Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-13308-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2026 Manju Rani ....Petitioner

Versus

The Appellate Authority and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Kesar Arora, Advocate and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent/Corporation to not to effect the recovery from the salary of the petitioner before deciding the stay application made in appeal dated 30.03.2026/01.04.2026 (Annexure P7) filed against the order dated 11.02.2026/12.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent/Corporation. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to refund the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner and stay the recovery from the salary of the petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal along with a stay application against the impugned order. He places reliance upon judgments passed by this Court in CWP-22650-2022, titled as Manju Rani vs Appellate Authority, The Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and another, decided on 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-8), CWP-12307-2018, titled as Anil Kumar and another vs The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited 'MARKFED' and another, decided on 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-14) and CWP-9845-2025, titled as Tirath Ram vs Board of Directors, decided on 15.07.2020 (Annexure P-16) and submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, at this stage, if a direction is issued to respondent No.1/Appellate Authority to decide the appeal as well as the stay application by passing a speaking order within a time bound manner and till such decision, recovery from the salary of the petitioner be stayed. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that although the petitioner has a right to file the statutory appeal, however, the same has not been received in the office of the respondents/Corporation till date. He further submits that in case the petitioner files the statutory appeal along with the stay application, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

5.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal along with the stay application before respondent No.1/Appellate Authority, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today. Upon such filing, respondent No.1/Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the appeal as well as the stay application by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

6.

It is further directed that till the decision of the appeal and the stay application by the Appellate Authority, recovery from the salary of the petitioner shall remain stayed.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 30.04.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No