KULDEEP CHAND SOOD vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS — CWP/10963/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010572462026

e-Filing Number

05-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/20293/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/10963/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Coram

Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Bench Type

Single

Category

68.26 - SERVICE-ENGINEERING-PUNJAB(PWD,B&R&PUBLIC HEALTH ( 782 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KULDEEP CHAND SOOD

    Adv. VIVEK K. THAKUR

  2. 2.Kuldeep Chand Sood

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

  2. 2.Kuldeep Chand Sood

  3. 3.Chief Engineer

  4. 4.Chief Engineer

  5. 5.Superintending Engineer,

  6. 6.Executive Engineer,

  7. 7.Executive Engineer

  8. 8.SPO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Kuldeep TiwariView PDF

    Summary of CWP/10963/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kuldeep Chand Sood's petition challenging the rejection of his claim for interest on delayed payment of arrears (pay, gratuity, etc.). Although the court acknowledged that arrears were previously awarded in an earlier 1998 petition, it held the current petition was not maintainable under the doctrine of constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to claim interest relief in the earlier proceedings when the cause of action was available to him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/10963/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CWP/10963/2026: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Kuldeep Chand Sood's petition challenging the rejection of his claim for interest on delayed payment of arrears (pay, gratuity, etc.). Although the court acknowledged that arrears were previously awarded in an earlier 1998 petition, it held the current petition was not maintainable under the doctrine of constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to claim interest relief in the earlier proceedings when the cause of action was available to him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case