Director General Sports Authority Of India And ORS v. Sukhdev Singh Pannu And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-11293-2018 (O&M) Decided on : 11.03.2026 DIRECTOR GENERAL SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS . .Petitioners

Versus

SUKHDEV SINGH PANNU AND ORS .

. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Tuteja, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 2.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 27.07.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 3-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal'), by which, certain directions have been given

-2with regard to recovery of rent/license fee from the retiral dues of respondent No. 1 and the payment of gratuity alongwith interest. 2.

Certain facts need to be noted for correct adjudication of the issue in hand.

3.

Respondent No. 1-Sukhdev Singh, is the employee of the petitioners i.e. Sports Authority of India and while he was posted to perform the duty at Ludhiana, he was allotted a Government Accommodation by the Chairman House Allotment Committee of the State of Punjab. It being a Government accommodation, respondent no. 1 was not entitled for the payment of the House Rent Allowance. The dispute between respondent No. 1 and 2 arose when respondent No. 1 retained the accommodation when he was transferred from Ludhiana to Mastwana Sahib, District Sangrur. 4.

Before the retirement of respondent No. 1, issue arose with regard to the payment of rent/license fee on account of retention of Government accommodation by respondent No. 1. After the retirement of the respondent No. 1,sum of Rs. 13,89,824/- was deducted from the pensionary benefits of the respondent No. 1 and his gratuity amount was withheld. The said action was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. The State of Punjab, whose accommodation was being availed of by respondent No. 1, was also impleaded as a respondent before the Tribunal. However, the State of Punjab did not contest the claim raised by respondent No. 1 and remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

5.

Although the claim raised by respondent No. 1 regarding deduction of certain amount from his retiral benefits and withholding of gratuity was contested by the petitioners, the Tribunal, after considering all

-3the facts, held that the withholding of the gratuity amount by the petitioners was not permissible. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the gratuity be released in favour of respondent No. 1 along with interest on account of delay.

6.

With regard to the adjustment of the license fee admissible, to be paid by respondent No. 1, liberty was given to the petitioners to assess the same and in case, any amount is liable to be paid by respondent No.1, the same should be recovered from the interest made admissible to the respondent No. 1.

7.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked whether the deductions sought to be made on account of pending licence fee were being made by the petitioners as agents of the State of Punjab or in their own jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the said deductions were being made on behalf of the State of Punjab as the accommodation was of the State of Punjab.

8.

Once, the State of Punjab was the party to the litigation before the Tribunal and it has chosen not to contest any claim raised, how come the petitioners could file a writ petition challenging the direction given by the Tribunal, especially when, the petitioners were given liberty to recover the pending license fee, in case, same was yet to be paid by the respondent No. 1 and to adjust the same out of the payment due towards the respondent No. 1.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any prejudice caused to the petitioners on account of directions given by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 27.07.2017 (Annexure P-5).

-410.

Hence, i

 


 
 
 
  
  

  
  
 
  
 


 1  
   
 12.

Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 11.03.2026 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No