SURINDER PAL AND ANOTHER vs PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER — CWP/16505/2023

Case under Constitution of India Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Aug-2023

CNR: PHHC010931992023

Filing Number

CWP/37543/2023

Filing Date

25-Jul-2023

Registration No

CWP/16505/2023

Registration Date

31-Jul-2023

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Bench Type

Single

Category

20.5 - SC OSB (PUNJAB) RETIRAL BENEFITS ( 467 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURINDER PAL AND ANOTHER

    Adv. VIKAS SINGH

  2. 2.RAMAN ABROL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/16505/2023 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition by legal representatives of two deceased PEPSU Road Transport Corporation employees seeking enhanced gratuity benefits. The court held that the 2010 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, which increased the gratuity ceiling limit effective May 24, 2010, applies prospectively only. Since the employees retired in 2006—prior to the amendment's enforcement date—they cannot claim enhanced gratuity retroactively without express statutory authorization for retrospective application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Aug-2023

    Other

  4. 25-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/16505/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/16505/2023 The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition by legal representatives of two deceased PEPSU Road Transport Corporation employees seeking enhanced gratuity benefits. The court held that the 2010 amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, which increased the gratuity ceiling limit effective May 24, 2010, applies prospectively only. Since the employees retired in 2006—prior to the amendment's enforcement date—they cannot claim enhanced gratuity retroactively without express statutory authorization for retrospective application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case