Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs ₹5 Lakh Compensation to Retrenched Hydel Project Worker; Says State Cannot Deny Benefits Already Mandated for Similarly Situated Employees

Case Name: Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab & Others
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2025
Citation: CWP-13449-1997
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the petitioner, a retrenched Earth Work Mistri from the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (ASHP), was entitled to the benefit of the binding directions issued in Mehanga Ram and reaffirmed by the Advocate General’s undertaking before the Supreme Court. While reinstatement after decades was considered impracticable, the Court ruled that the petitioner suffered unjust hardship solely due to the State’s prolonged non-compliance and therefore deserved monetary redress.

Summary: The petitioner’s services were terminated in 1985 upon completion of the ASHP. In Mehanga Ram, the High Court had directed that all retrenched ASHP employees be absorbed in other State projects within six months, with their service counted for pensionary benefits. This direction, the Court held, operated as a “continuing mandamus” for the entire class of retrenched workers.

The petitioner relied on the Advocate General’s categorical undertaking before the Supreme Court that appointment or transfer letters would be issued to all retrenched ASHP employees. While the State complied with this undertaking for others, the petitioner was left out. The Court rejected objections of delay, holding that discrimination in implementation of a judicial direction gives rise to a recurring cause of action.

The Court emphasised that the State, as a model employer, cannot selectively confer benefits on some members of a class while denying identical relief to others, especially when the petitioner had continuously pursued his rights. Citing Gowramma and Santosh Kumar Seal, the Court also noted that in cases where reinstatement is no longer feasible due to lapse of time, the appropriate remedy is monetary compensation.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the State to pay ₹5,00,000 as lump-sum compensation to the petitioner, recognising that he suffered decades of deprivation owing to administrative apathy despite clear judicial directions in his favour. The amount must be released within three months of receipt of the order.