Golu v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.05.2026 Golu .....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mannat Khurana, Advocate and Ms. Reema, Advocate for respondent No.4.

**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay/grant subsistence allowance to the petitioner at the rate of 50% for the first six months and thereafter the enhanced amount of subsistence allowance under

Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date it became due till the date of actual payment, and further to consider and decide the reinstatement/revocation of suspension in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Safai Sewak on compassionate grounds on 02.12.1993 after the death of his brother Late Shri Manga Ram and served the respondent-department diligently for more than two decades with an unblemished service record. He submits that although the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.06.2014 pursuant to registration of FIRs, he was acquitted in FIR No.78 vide judgment dated 01.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Insofar as FIR No.79 under the NDPS Act is concerned, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2016 passed in CRA-S No.3275-SB of 2016 and the petitioner was released on bail.

2.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the matter having been forwarded by respondent No.4 to the Deputy Director, Local Government, Patiala and despite repeated representations and supply of the order passed by this Court, no final decision has been taken till date regarding the petitioner's reinstatement/service status. It is further contended that the petitioner has remained under suspension for

more than 11 years and has not been paid proper subsistence allowance, except a one-time payment of dress/uniform allowance/Guzara Bhatta, thereby causing extreme financial hardship to the petitioner and his family. 2.2.

It is thus contended that the continued suspension of the petitioner without any final decision and the denial of subsistence allowance is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the criminal appeal is still pending and the sentence already stands suspended by this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in the event the petitioner earns an acquittal.

4.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

5.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No