Patwinder Singh vs The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors.

“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

14.

In compliance with the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 7727 of 2025 titled Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others and CWP No. 7728 of 2025 titled Major Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 16.04.2025, has constituted an Empowered Committee to address the various issues raised by the employees.

15.

In view of the above, the petition(s) are disposed of in the following terms:

a. The petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations setting out their respective claims before the Empowered Committee within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

b. The Empowered Committee shall afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall adjudicate their claims by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months, keeping in view the judgments referred to hereinabove.

c. It is further clarified that any other similarly situated employee, who has not approached this Court, shall also be at liberty to submit a representation before the Empowered Committee, and such representation(s) shall be decided by the Committee in a time-bound manner in accordance with law.

16.

This Court is constrained to observe that the controversy involved herein has travelled to this Court on multiple occasions, and has even engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One is compelled to ask: what purpose does the Litigation Policy serve if matters, despite being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest constitutional forum? Once the law on an issue stands crystalised, compelling similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the rule of law. The State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, promptly, and in good faith. Administrative indifference and inertia in implementing Court directions has emerged as a recurring concern; one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice delivery system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored that justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but justice diluted, deferred, and ultimately defeated. Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline. This Court, therefore, refers the matters to the Empowered Committee with earnest hope that reasoned and lawful decisions shall be taken, ensuring that the litigation is finally brought to an end. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”