SHANTI NANDAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this single judgment, both the above-mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of together as the identical question of law is involved therein.

(2.) The petitioners, in both these petitions, have sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the payment of all the retiral dues to them, along-with interest thereon @ 18% per annum, from the date of accrual till the actual payment thereof with a further prayer for issuing an interim direction to respondent No.4 to take a final decision on the enquiry report dated 05.12.2018 in respect of the charge-sheets dated 10.03.2017 as served to them.

(3.) For the sake of precision and brevity and also to avoid the repetition of facts, it would be expedient to cull out the common facts as canvassed by both the petitioners in their respective petitions. The petitioners had remained employed with the respondent-Federation and have already superannuated. The services of the employees of the respondent-Federation are governed by the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Common Cadre Service) Rules, 1990 (here-in-after referred to as "the Service Rules") and the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1990 (here-in-after referred to as "the Punishment and Appeal Rules"). They were issued separate charge-sheets dated 10.03.2017 with the allegations of having caused monetary loss to the respondent-Federation and in pursuance of the same, an enquiry had also been conducted against them. The Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 05.12.2018, held that the charges, levelled against them, stood proved. However, the decision qua the said disciplinary proceedings has not yet been taken whereas the said proceedings in respect of some of the similarly placed employees have already been finalized. The respondents have withheld their retiral dues, i.e the amounts of gratuity and leave encashment and have, thus, wrongly deprived them of their said dues, as admissible to them on their retirement and they are suffering financial hardship on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in taking the final decision qua the said disciplinary proceedings as pending against them.