CWP No.2660 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2660 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.02.2011 **** Jit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a retired Senior Branch Officer of the Markfed. He seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release his retiral dues like Leave Encashment, Bonus, Refund of Staff Security, arrears of Gratuity as well as arrears of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the date of his retirement. It appears that the petitioner’s retiral dues have been withheld on account of the charge-sheet dated 05.03.1997 alleging that he along with one Sewa Singh (also a retired Senior Branch Officer) were liable to compensate the Markfed for the alleged losses caused by them. It further appears CWP No.2660 of 2011.doc - 2 – that in the light of the subsequent policy decision taken by the Punjab Government vide Circular dated 21.11.2000, the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab vide memo dated 22.9.2001 (Annexure P3-A) followed by the Directive dated 11.12.2002/16.12.2002 of the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab have directed that no action is to be taken against the officials of the procurement agencies. (2). It also appears that notwithstanding the above-stated Directives, the retiral dues of Sewa Singh, who was also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner were withheld by respondents but pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.15888 of 2007 (Sewa Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.), Sewa Singh has since been paid his retiral dues. (3). The petitioner alleges discrimination in this regard and seeks a direction for the payment of his retiral dues. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in Sewa Singh’s case (supra). CWP No.2660 of 2011.doc - 3 – (5). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge