The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab to undertake fresh and independent scrutiny of employees’ grievances concerning pension and other retirement and service benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment and Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) benefits.The Bench has also asked the State to take appropriate corrective measures, in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions and law, “particularly in view of the standard operating procedure (SOP) dated December 22, 2025.”The direction came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil disposed of a bunch of 65 petitions without adjudicating the individual claims on merits by directing the “Tier-II Grievance Redressal Committee” to examine the cases afresh. The Court noted that the matter had wider implications for a considerable number of employees across the State.At the onset, Justice Moudgil noted that the petitions included claims for pension, provisional pension, arrears from the date of retirement, interest on delayed pensionary benefits, ACPS benefits, gratuity, leave encashment and other admissible retirement dues. Some petitioners had also complained of delay in sanctioning or releasing such benefits and consequential non-payment of interest.The Bench also took note of the State counsel’s contention that Department of Personnel had already issued an SOP for proper examination and expeditious resolution of grievances relating to pensionary and other retirement benefits.Under the SOP, three-tier grievance redressal committees had been constituted at different levels, headed by the head of the department concerned.The State also submitted that the present claims could be examined by the tier-II committee concerned.The Bench was also told that the committee included the head of the department or nominee not below the rank of Special Secretary/Additional Director; an accounts branch officer of the department concerned not below the “SAS” cadre; a retired superior judicial services officer or departmental law officer/legal adviser; and the branch concerned officer responsible for convening meetings and presenting the case. The committee might also co-opt another member if considered necessary, it was added.Taking a note of the contention, Justice Moudgil asserted: “Considering the fact that the present petitions have remained pending before this Court and involve pensionary/retirement claims of the petitioners, the examination of the claim raised cannot be merely mechanical or confined to the stand already taken by the Department.  The Committee shall, therefore, reconsider and re-examine each matter individually from all four corners”.Justice Moudgil made it clear that each case would have to be examined individually with reference to the relevant service record, earlier orders, applicable statutory rules and departmental instructions, the petitioner’s entitlement and the reasons for withholding or delaying any retirement benefit. The committee would also ascertain whether any amount remained unpaid after the petitioner became entitled to it and, if so, the period for which it remained unpaid.Justice Moudgil specifically directed examination of claims for interest on delayed payment.“Wherever delay in release of pension, provisional pension, gratuity, leave encashment or any other retirement/ service benefit is found to be apparent from the record, it shall record a specific finding with regard to the period of delay and the petitioner’s entitlement, if any, to interest in accordance with law, the applicable rules/instructions and the legal principles settled by this Court…,” Justice Moudgil asserted, while directing the concerned to take a “specific decision” in each individual case.For facilitating proper consideration of the legal issues and uniformity in decision-making, Justice Moudgil appointed Punjab Assistant Advocate-General TPS Walia as an additional member of the committee concerned. He was asked to assist the committee in examining legal issues involved in the cases and ensuring consideration of the claims in accordance with law.Before parting with the order, Justice Moudgil took note of the State counsel’s assurance that the cases would receive fresh and independent consideration.The Court clarified that the filing of written statements in the petitions or earlier departmental orders would not prevent such reconsideration. The cases were required to be examined afresh on their own merits in light of the entire record and applicable legal position.The petitions would be treated as representations. But the petitioners would be entitled to place before the committee documents/material as might be necessary for establishing their claims. The petitioners would be given an opportunity of personal hearing in case the committee deemed it fit and wherever required.The committee was directed to examine, among other things, each petitioner’s entitlement to pension, provisional pension, pension arrears, ACPS benefits, gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits; the reasons for withholding or delaying any admissible benefit; and the claim for interest wherever delay was apparent from the record.It would take into account the relevant rules, instructions, judgments and service record before passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order,” the Bench concluded.