Tariq Hussain v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-18170-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.05.2026 Tariq Hussain ....Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Vikrant Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

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 certiorari, for quashing/setting-aside the impugned Memo dated 12.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) vide which the respondent/Nigam have deducted an amount of Rs.4,31,880/- recovered from the retiral benefits on account of shortage of oil and missing parts of transformers without any charge sheet from the salary and retiral benefits of petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to release the illegal deducted/withheld an amount of Rs.4,31,880/- recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e.

30.04.2026 till its realization in view of law laid down by this Court in Surjeet Singh Bedi vs. DHBVN & others (Annexure P-3) and Renu Sharma vs DHBVNL & others (Annexure P-9).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the representation dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, appearing on advance notice, submits that they have no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

4.

Keeping in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments passed in CWP8100-2005, titled as Ghanshyam Dass Goyal vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others (Annexure P-2), Surjeet Singh Bedi's case (supra) (Annexure P-3) and Renu Sharma's case (supra) (Annexure P-9), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found

entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.

5.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No